BACK ON THE ROADWAY

EMR is happy to announce that TRILO-G is now ready to ship. More on that soon but first a few observations – from the perspective of TRILO-G – on “The Case for a Floating Gas Tax” post and string:

Jim Bacon is right that each scale of human settlement pattern must support its fair share of roadways and other infrastructure to support citizen’s Mobility and Access. The problem is that there are more organic scales of human settlement than most citizens now recognize. For starters there are FAR more than the three that are now formerly recognized – 1.) nation-state, 2.)state / province, and 3.) municipal (aka, “local” – a Core Confusing Word).

Groveton illustrates this point very clearly: Groveton is right that he should not have to pay for his ‘last mile’ of Street since his Dooryard Agency (or Cluster Agency, depending on the number of Households / Enterprises / Institutions that pay for his Street – see GLOSSARY for capitalized words) already covers the cost of the roadway – note two caveats below.

What Groveton has not yet grasped is that his Dooryard (or Cluster) IS an Agency (aka, a unit of ‘government’ in the current governance structure – al be it dysfunctionally disconnected and isolated from the rest of the structure).

Two Caveats:

1.) The cost of the materials and labor to build maintain the Street must reflect the full cost of their application.

2.) Groveton (or his Dooryard / Cluster Agency) still has to pay a SubRegion or Regional fee for the air he pollutes and the runoff from the street. These impacts are now treated as externalities paid for by all citizens and indexed in environmental degradation. These might be covered by a intelligent fuel tax but they are not now. That is why there is a scramble to find money (as well as the political will) to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

Larry and Jim Bacon are right that in the future technology will monitor the full, true costs of vehicular movement – and almost everything else. In a complex, technologically-dependent society this is the ONLY way to determine and fairly allocate – not just location-variable costs but – ALL costs and maintain a ‘modern’ civilization that also relies on democratic governance and market economies.

Privacy advocates have not come to grips with reality:

Humans have not yet evolved far enough to be trusted with Privacy. Tiger Woods has demonstrated this axiom. Those who tout privacy are far more likely to be trying to hide information from spouse, Household, neighbors (at all scales) and the law. Those are the genes that got humans to this point but will not serve species survival well in the future.

The other reality related to almost every comment in the string is that humans do not do well at governing – or surveilling – via large Agencies. All the more reason for Fundamental Transformation to Governance structures based on the organic structure of human settlement with full disclosure, and sunshine at ALL scales.

Yes, this will slow down ‘growth’ which is exactly what humans need — ways to reduce consumption and inequity.

EMR


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

114 responses to “BACK ON THE ROADWAY”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton (or his Dooryard / Cluster Agency) still has to pay a SubRegion or Regional fee for the air he pollutes and the runoff from the street.

    Quick Groveton, stop breathing. you have no right to pollute and you have no right to exist.

    You have to pay the subregional fee for that.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    "in the future technology will monitor the full, true costs of vehicular movement – and almost everything else. In a complex, technologically-dependent society this is the ONLY way to determine and fairly allocate – not just location-variable costs but – ALL costs and maintain a ‘modern’ civilization "

    And after we do that, here is what we will discover: After we pay and backbill all those costs, 99% of it will be a wash.

    The cost of doing all that calculatin will keep two or three coal burning plants and a dozen server farms heating up the atmosphere.

    If we can't find a better cheaper, more rational and more civlized way to trade than that, we really are screwed.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    "Yes, this will slow down 'growth' which is exactly what humans need — ways to reduce consumption and inequity."

    Guaranteed to foment a global war. We have no idea how to operate a steady state economy. so far as I know it has never been done: een the peple of easter island could not manage it.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Those who tout privacy are far more likely to be trying to hide information from spouse, Household, neighbors (at all scales) and the law.

    I don't have any problem with hiding from them whatever is none of their business. If that mode of operation is good enough for the CIA then it is good enough for me.

    You do not need to know where I am or what I'm doing.

    RH

  5. Groveton Avatar

    And EMR needs to pay me a fee for the acres of trees on my property. Trees that convert his carbon dioxide back into oxygen.

    As for my dooryard being an agency – it is, by far, the best agency affecting me.

  6. In EMR's world, Groveton's property would be converted to a condo complex for 15,000 people.

    …be cleared of trees.. be 98% impervious surfaces with major storm water pollution.. and sewage/wastewater laced with hormones and anti-biotics dumped into the Potomac.

    2 more mountaintops in WVA would be blasted to provide mercury-laden electricity…

    and …. Groveton is owed millions of dollars in "compensation" for maintaining undeveloped land that benefits NoVa.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    and …. Groveton is owed millions of dollars in "compensation" for maintaining undeveloped land that benefits NoVa.

    ——————————–

    Well it cannot be both.

    Either he is allowed to develop and he shares both the cost of additional infrastructure development and the benefits of development with his neighbors

    Or

    He is prevented from doing that and he gets compensation for whatever you want to call it: natural resource management, scenery maintenance, opportunity loss.

    Either way the goal is to make sure that neither he nor his neighbors get either an undue benefit or undue costs for the shared social/environmental benefits provided.

    That is distinct from the personal profit that may come from doing the actual work of development. He might also find a way to profit from the scenery business, but that would likewise be distinct from compensation for his opportunity costs.

    Or he might do neither and prefer to be left alone.

    RH

  8. E M Risse Avatar

    Groveton said:

    “And EMR needs to pay me a fee for the acres of trees on my property. Trees that convert his carbon dioxide back into oxygen.

    “As for my dooryard being an agency – it is, by far, the best agency affecting me.”

    Two excellent points, Groveton, except you for got the CAPITALs, otherwise, right on! Lets take a closer look:

    “And EMR needs to pay me a fee for the acres of trees on my property.”

    EMR is way ahead of Groveton on this. He suggests in a recent draft, now in circulation, that those who maintain natural areas and mulched beds should get a water retention and CO2 sequestration credit (minus a sum for any area with impervious paving and short grass pollution not equipped with rail barrels, rain gardens, etc). The credit would off set the full cost of the Household location / spacial distribution decision.

    These owners can also use their land to generate food, biomass and sequester CO2.

    The credit numbers work on lots as small as 0.2 acres and the larger the parcel, the more product can be raised so there is no upper bound for parcels outside the Clear Edge.

    “Trees that convert his carbon dioxide back into oxygen.”

    That may be part of the credit equation too if the values can be quantified and verified.

    “As for my dooryard being an agency – it is, by far, the best agency affecting me.”

    If the majority of the Households in your Dooryard agree with you, then you are RIGHT and should have the opportunity to administer more of the Agency services that impact your life.

    You will recall that in the future the most important Agency to most humans should be their Cluster – direct, participatory democracy at the Cluster scale and representative democracy at the other four or five levels within the NUR as well as those beyond the NUR scale. Details in Shape of the Future & TRILO-G.

    Larry has no idea what “EMRs world” would look like, and neither does EMR, except it would not “look” a lot different.

    In fact there has been amazingly little REAL change in functional human settlement patterns over the past 10,000 years. Wasted space and new materials, yes but functions, size and capabilities of the human animal has not changed. Now that the real cost of overcoming spacial disaggregation will have to be factored in most will be surprised how much was thought of as ‘old’ in the “subUrbanization era” will be new again.

    One of the critical shortcomings of human activity is the inability to visualize the outcomes of the Fundamental Transformations necessary to avoid Collapse.

    EMR has some thoughts on the topic and that is why, after TRILO-G ships, EMR will be working on an essay addressing ‘what the future holds’ that fits right in with Jim’s Boomergeddon.

    There will be an overarching introduction followed by three sketches dealing with the M&A Crisis, the A&A Housing Crisis and the Helter Skelter Crisis. They will be followed by three more sketches on the three Fundamental Transformations necessary for humans to secure a sustainable trajectory for their civilization.

    More on that later.

    EMR

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    "EMR is way ahead of Groveton on this. "

    ————————–

    Yah. now go back and look at some of the early debates where I suggested this, which is already done in some other countries.

    On that basis, I could actually operate the farm, full time and make a halfway decent living. Now all I need is health insurance.

    Carbon in trees is sequestered only so long as the trees are alive, or the wood is used for something durable. Trees grown for firewood don't sequester much. We need a plan to figure out what we are going to do with all these forests when the trees are mature and must come down.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    "If the majority of the Households in your Dooryard agree with you, then you are RIGHT …"

    ——————————–

    You and Larry with your majority nonsense.

    The majority needs some checks and balances, to prevent mob rule. Equal property rights is one of the best checks and balances.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    "It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.

    But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good — driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation's dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels. "

    Today's WaPo

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    "Right now, almost no U.S. land is devoted to raising biomass crops; according to congressional estimates, by 2022 the country will need between 22.2 and 55.5 million acres for this purpose."

    —————————-

    Not going to happen unless the price for the fuels is higher than the cost of the carrying costs and taxes for the land, plus whatever it costs to manage the crop.

    What weare talking about here is sequestering 55 milion acres from other uses, and that is going to have a price.

    RH

  13. Ray – the next time you take a little trip west on I-66 then north/south on I-81, take note of the vacant land that at one point in the past was under cultivation and now is not.

    and you keep telling us that there are less and less working farms because they cannot make a profit farming…

    yet the grocery stores overflow with food.

    I have separate issues with biofuels that require as much fuel to grow and harvest them as they generate in the harvest.

    That's foolishness.

    Perhaps there are some kinds of biofuels where the the harvest is a net increase or perhaps we can find lands where solar/wind/biocrops can be leveraged.

    but when I see along the rural interstates the millions of acres of idle/unproductive land I wonder what it's value is to the owners.

    Oh.. and the "tree" problem… did you forget that we don't harvest every last tree together at one time and start over…

    and instead there are millions of acres of land planted in trees and each year a small percentage is harvested while the other trees continue growing?

    and if we ever run out, Canada and Alaska are just itching to get in that game.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    I'm confused. Does EMR think Groveton is a good guy (because his trees and open space handle storm water and carbon dioxide emissions) or a bad guy (because his big lot contributes to sprawl)?

    TMT

  15. Groveton Avatar

    EMR – I wait for the publication of the oft discussed TRILO-G with eager anticipation. I hope you have reconsidered a Kindle version given the improved graphics of the new Kindles. However, if you insist on forcing your readers to kills trees, I'll order the book in hard copy. Just be sure to be clear with everybody on this blog where, when and how we can get a copy.

    I agree with your points regarding land ownership and environmental stewardship. However, I do not hold myself out as an example of virtue. Instead, I hold out many of my neighbors as examples of non virtue. I have seen numerous cases of acres and acres of trees being leveled by both builders and residents in Great Falls. The builders simply find it more convenient to build if they first bulldoze each and every living thing from the land including all the trees (and all the saplings, bushes, shrubs, weeds, etc). It's disgraceful. When I built my house I made a special effort to put the envelope on a place with only a few big trees, keep the vast majority of all greenery in place and plant far more trees than I took out. Since I finished the house (a bit over 5 years ago) I have seen builders destroy an unbelievable amount of land. It looks like they dropped daisy cutter bombs. Additionally, several of my neighbors have bulldozed acres of woodland so they can build a barn and have a couple of horses on their property. Interesting that they consider themselves conservationists. They are anything but.

    As for TMT's question – I don't really see how I create sprawl. I live in Great Falls and work in Reston. My commute is 8 mi per day (each way). I walk to lunch in Reston every day. I drive my car about 8,000 miles a year so I am not running a lot of lengthy non-work errands either. The lot where I live is on septic and well water. It has percolation sufficient for the number of bedrooms in my house. I am not sure that higher density was really an option. I guess I could have packed my 5 kids and wife into a condo in Reston and walked to work.

  16. A question for Groveton on NoVa, home rule.. and the ability to tax…

    I came across this recently:

    TAXING POWERS GRANTED TO VIRGINIA COUNTIES

    http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/PDFs/taxpow.pdf

    page 4

    Income (Tax)
    (§§58.1-540-549) Va Code

    Cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach,
    Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
    Manassas, and Manassas Park, and Counties
    of Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, and Prince
    William

    Limited to maximum of 1%; must be
    approved by referendum. Revenues must be
    used for transportation facilities. Tax can be
    levied for only 5 years from the effective
    date of the tax. Collection of tax is to be
    administered by state with proceeds remitted
    to locality.

    Now a 1% tax on Income in NoVa would generate $377 million dollars a year for transportation…

    http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1188

    it appears that the NoVa jurisdictions have:

    1. – more taxing authority than other jurisdictions

    2. – the ability to generate their own transpo money and keeping it instead of sending to Richmond

    3. – have not exercised that option

    What say you?

  17. E M Risse Avatar

    TMT asks if EMR thinks Groveton is a good guy or a bad guy.

    Groveton is a good guy, and smart too.

    In fact there are is little validity in judging anyone as bad guys – so long as they pay the full cost of their actions and do not violate democratically articulated laws and regulations based on well considered public judgements.

    Even TMT’s favorite whipping boys – Tysons Developers – are playing by the rules as they understand them and as administered by the existing governance structure. Charge them the full cost of what they are doing and they would do what Groveton, Larry, TMT and EMR could all agree on.

    Democracies with market economies cannot continue to exist with an unfair and inequitable allocations of cost. Humans since 1870 have been wallowing in a huge excess of resources (burning up Natural Capital instead of living on Natural Income) and that must end.

    Sorry, TMT (Too Many Taxes) that means paying MORE in taxes / fees and much more in the market to secure quality products like food and medical care.

    Historically, humans spend 90 percent of their resources on food and shelter. That is down to around 30 percent in the US of A and those at the top of the Ziggurat spend far less. When the Constitution was drafted 95 percent of the population was involved in food production and providing their own shelter. Now it is 5 percent.

    Time to ReBalance the table. “Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture” by Shell is a good place to start.

    Shorten the food delivery chain, get petroleum and chemicals out of food and food delivery, increase the number of citizens involved in food production close to the consumer (Urbanside agriculture AND Countryside agriculture), make humans more responsible for their own health, create functional settlement patterns… It is all in Shape of the Future and TRILO-G.

    EMR

    PS:

    On the way out the door, a note for Groveton later today or soon.

    In the meantime, Both SotF 4th printing and TRILO-G are in electronic form. If you have a Kindle II that reads PDFs directly your are in good luck. Do not know about PowerPoints. But I am sure "there is an app for that."

  18. Groveton Avatar

    LarryG

    This is the kind of thing I have come to expect from the state government. They want to hold all the cards but accept none of the responsibility. There is no way I could support a tax that is collected and remitted by the clown show in Richmond. They should either implement a state-wide 1% income tax to solve the budget shortfall (which would generate $2.3B / year) or they should back completely and permanently out of the local transportation business.

  19. the local income tax is more "home rule" than a Richmond state-wide tax – no?

    If you expect "Richmond" to raise the income tax though – shouldn't you have voted for Deeds?

    you're sending mixed messages here guy.

    Home Rule = self tax and self decide your own destiny

    "State" Responsibility means have the state increase taxes and unless I'm really badly mistaken I don't see that idea even slightly crossing Gov. McDonnells mind… no?

    Here's my take. On more than one occasion, Richmond has enacted enabling legislation to allow localities greater freedom and flexibility to raise funds and decide local priorities and over and over, the counties have run away from such offers.. preferring instead that "the State" …."be responsible".

    Does Fairfax/NoVa want to be more responsible for it's own destiny …or not?

    For instance, with that 1%, NoVa could buy and operate the HOT Lanes themselves. No private contractors… no State hacks… just the NoVa Transportation Authority….

    and you could use all the proceeds for NoVA transportation needs…

    appealing idea, eh?

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    Back on the Roadway.

    Smartcar sales are way down. Looks like people have a limited appetite for smll private vehicles.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    take note of the vacant land that at one point in the past was under cultivation and now is not.

    and you keep telling us that there are less and less working farms because they cannot make a profit farming…

    yet the grocery stores overflow with food.

    —————————-

    Precisely.

    I love it when you make my arguments for me.

    Until around 1945 we uses almost 25% of our farmland to raise feed for the dreft animals that worked the other 25%. Tractors made that land surplus.

    Industrial, large scale agriculture, modern seeds and fertilizer, made a lot of other farmland surplus.

    Right now, we don't need anywhere near as many farms as we have or anywhere near as much farmland.

    Rationally speaking, the thing to do islet the farms go out of business. I can't subdivide my farm, so the only way it can be sold is as a farm. You don't get rid of surplus farms that way.

    On the other hand, we now have plans to cultivate another 11 million acres or so for biofuels, and that will put a lot of land back in operation. We also have forecasts in the not so far future of needing a lot more food than we produce now. Therefore there is some reason to preserve farms and farmland, even if we don't need them at the moment.

    Our farm policy does just the opposite. We have farm subsidies to keep farms in business but almost all of that goes to a few very large farm corporations. There are 2000 farms in Fauquier county but ten of them get 95% of the subsidies.

    We need to reassess what we think our needs are or will be, and develop policies that save farmland worth saving and let the rest do something profitable. My neighbors would hate to see it, but my farm would make a lot more sense as a truck stop. (Not that I want to do that, but it is an illustration.)

    In my mind the real question is whether we will ever allow farmers to get paid on a par with the effort they put forth, the capital they have to invest, and the risks they take.

    Farmers are such second class citizens we don't een count them in the labor statistics ("non-farm labor fell by 23,000 jobs last month").

    ——————————-

    Contrary to often stated opinion it does not take MORE fuel to raise biofuels than you get back. It takes quite a bit of the net but it is not MORE.

    Look at it this way, if you think you cannot get as many BTU's out of corn as it takes to grow it,then it does not matter whether you are making ethanol from the corn, hogs from the corn, or people from the corn: it is still a net loss on the energy budget. As EMR would say, you are using up natural capital (oil) to create something of less BTU value.

    The only reason we do it is we can sell the corn for more than we can sell the oil, so it is an energy loss but an economic gain.

    You could stop using tractors and go back to mules, in which case your corn would be made entirely from renewables. It would take a lot more land and a lot more human labor to do it. You would be trading the use of land as natural capital for the use of oil as natural capital.

    ———————————

    Fewer and fewer farms can operate at a profit, let alone provide a decent living for their owners.

    Groceries overflow with food.

    Those statements are not incompatible. In fact, if we ever see shortages in the markets THEN famers will be able to make a profit.

    Henry Ford said he wanted to pay his workers enough so they could buy one of his cars. If you buy a box of cereal in the store for $3.50 the farmer got about two cents of that amount. Of that two cents about 5% is profit,so he is going to have to make enough grain for 1000 boxes of cereal before he earns enough to have breakfast.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    We are burning fossil fuels that took millons of years to create.

    It is foolishness to think we can sequester enough carbon in living trees to make a significant difference.

    In order to put that carbon back where it came from we are going to have to do what nature did: grow stuff and then bury it.

    A hundred year life cycle for a forest is a drop in the bucket. Yu plnat an new forest and after a hundred years the trees are mature. After that they fall down and rot and the co2 goes right back in the atmoshphere. New trees grow in the forest to replace them , but you do not get any ADDITIONAL sequestration from that plot of land from there forward.

    In order for trees or any other vegetation to help clean up the CO2 you have to grow the stuff and then take it out of the CO2 cycle—don't let it rot.

    That means you have to bury it, anaerobically, or use it for something so valuable that people will revere it for generations. We will need to carve a lot of wooden idols and become much more religious.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    "Does EMR think Groveton is a good guy (because his trees and open space handle storm water and carbon dioxide emissions) or a bad guy (because his big lot contributes to sprawl)? "

    Nice. :-).

    Its a U shaped curve. You need enough space for some things and not too much for others. Some open space can be scattered, like soccer fields, but if you need habitat for Elephants you need a lot of contiguous space.

    And you need a certain amount of space just to keep from being psychotic.

    RH

  24. farmers are like textile mills and pizza shops that use old fashioned (less productive) methods of production.

    I sympathize but I can't "undo" technology and the trend towards more industrial farming methods.

    It does no one any good to try to subsidize farming to "save" it.

    Farming is noble but no more or less than any person – like a tool and die worker or a steel mill worker…. all are hard-working and noble professions.

    None deserve a subsidy.

    Vacant land is unproductive land. We should not be paying money to keep it vacant or in sympathy because it is vacant.

    If someone can make a profit with biofuels on vacant land (without a subsidy) then SUPER more power to them and much success.

  25. " And you need a certain amount of space just to keep from being psychotic."

    does that imply that Functional Settlement Patterns create psychotic folks?

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    The builders simply find it more convenient to build if they first bulldoze each and every living thing from the land including all the trees (and all the saplings, bushes, shrubs, weeds, etc). It's disgraceful.

    ———————————

    It is not always the case, but it is frequently the case that the builders MUST do that in order to meet the grading and drainage requirements, plus the local or HOA requirements to put utilities underground. by the time you meet all the requiremtns, there isn;t much left.

    It is also the case that many of our local trees are nothing but trash to begin with: not worth saving.

    There ARE good examples of entire communities that have been built by first surveying the trees, laying out a map of the valuable ones and then laying out the community around that, being careful not to wreck the trees in the process.

    There is one in Southern Maryland that is just stunning, but looking at it, it is hard to comprehend the amount of extra cost and work that went into it.

    I shoehorned my house into the woods, but it wasn't easy and I killed a few trees inadvertently. the good news is that most of that stuff does not go to waste, these days: there is a market for almost anything with a bit of cellulose in it.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    does that imply that Functional Settlement Patterns create psychotic folks?

    —————————-

    We have some real characters in the country, we are "colorful" as they say. But the nutcases seem to come from the city.

    Read it anyway you like.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    "It does no one any good to try to subsidize farming to "save" it."

    ——————————

    Then lets stop subsidizing the big guys.

    And lets stop all the sentimental hogwash about how we need to "save our farms".

    And lets do away with tax giveaways like conservation easements.

    And let's get Fauquier to change the rules so I don't have to farm or else go even more in the hole. I'm perfectly happy to let the land revert to forest and do nothing. I've got other stuff to do. Probably more profitable, too.

    If we are not going to subsidize the farms, then lets do away with agricultural zoning, and lgive the farmers a way out.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    Farming is noble but no more or less than any person – like a tool and die worker or a steel mill worker…. all are hard-working and noble professions.

    None deserve a subsidy.

    ——————————

    Except the tool and die worker makes something like ten times what a farmer makes.

    And there is a good chance he's working on something that winds up in a government contract somewhere.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with subsidies, and you keep forgetting that. A subsidy is one way to address a market failure.

    We do see a lot of really bad subsidies, and subsidies that turned into entitlements long after they served their original purpose.

    But it is possible in come cases to have a subsidy that returns more than it costs.

    My farm breks even and it drops around $35,000 a year onto the elocal economy. I'd work harder and invest more, if I thought there was any chance to do better. So maybe if I had a subsidy of $10,000 a year the farm, which I saw as profit, then the farm might be dropping $70,000 a year onto the local economy.

    Or. I can go back to building furniture, and the farm will produce zero.

    People who think there shold be NO subsidies and NO debt, don;t know what they are talking about.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    If someone can make a profit with biofuels on vacant land (without a subsidy) then SUPER more power to them and much success.

    —————————–

    How about if they can make a profit buiding scattered homes on vacant land, without a subsidy?

    SUPER, mor power to them.

    RH

  31. I have seen more than a few gated communities in AZ-zoned areas get approved especially if the parcel is big enough for a lake and golf course.

    They handle all their internal roads an provide their own community center and recreational amenities and often generate more tax revenue than they use in services.

    But you need to require proposals as to providing by-right because there needs to be legally enforceable requirements to provide the amenities and roads, etc that they say they will provide.

    Old farms are vacant land, unproductive land and quite a bit of it is in land-use which if it works like where I live, a 100-300 acre parcel in land-use will pay less annual taxes than a vacant 5 acre lot that is approved for one home.

    In a county like the majority of counties outside of the urban area in Va where most/much of the county is in pasture an forests, the taxes are appropriate – i.e. those counties do not collect more in taxes than they need to provide services and in primarily rural counties the services are minimal and the taxes are proportional.

    Farming with a big "F" now days is a business – not a way of life.

    and you're in it as a competitive enterprise or you're out of it.

    really no different than textile plants, steel mills and pizza shops.

    Indiscriminate "saving" of land, vacant land, defunct farms, etc is foolishness.

    there is far, far more land than there will every be enough money to "buy" …"conservation easements" as the State learned VERY Quickly when they decided to pay people for Conservation Easements – there was a stampede of land owners who saw it as free money for land that they would keep and use as before as they never had any plans to do anything different with it anyhow.

    Paying for land Conservation should prioritize land that has unusual, unique and significant attributes, natural, historic or cultural.

    Land that is "conserved" Permanently (without recourse) in a crazy patchwork and not contiguous is not good public policy.

    it screws up future rights of way for power line, pipeline and highway corridors.. and can and is used potentially for mischievous purposes.

  32. " A subsidy is one way to address a market failure."

    some market failures should be so.

    Perhaps no subsidies is not a good thing but we don't seem to have a good way of determining what a "good" subsidy is and we have a bunch that we know are not good.

  33. " How about if they can make a profit buiding scattered homes on vacant land, without a subsidy?"

    In much of RoVA this is not a problem… at all…

    of course there are NO services there either…

    a dirt road.. a 40 year-old school with low-paid teachers, no E911 or a very different response time E911 than many folks from near NoVa expect.. and fire/rescue that can and are ..often 20 minutes away if that.

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    "if it works like where I live, a 100-300 acre parcel in land-use will pay less annual taxes than a vacant 5 acre lot that is approved for one home."

    Sounds good but I seriously doubt it.

    First of all the vacant five acre lot is sitting there doing NOTHING.

    A 200 acre place in land use has to be USED, for something and you have to report income against it, or you lose the land use.

    There are loopholes. You can invest in tree planting and then call yourself a tree farm, but you have to actually plant trees, and eventually you will have to harvest them.

    That two hundred acres in land use probably has someone living on it and the RESIDENCE pays the same or more taxes than most other residences. It is only the part in agricultural use that gets the lower rate, but that tax is in ADDITION TO and not INSTEAD OF the residential tax.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    "Indiscriminate "saving" of land, vacant land, defunct farms, etc is foolishness."

    I agree, except that I also think it is foolish to transport blueberries hundreds of miles. It seems to me there must be some advantage in saving good farmland that is close to markets. However, I can't see what it is. The value in the land always seems to overwhelm any other considerations.

    RH

  36. " First of all the vacant five acre lot is sitting there doing NOTHING."

    In most cases, it's doing EXACTLY what the 300 acres is doing.

    " There are loopholes"

    do tell.. when's the last time someone lost their land-use status?

    Your land use does not work like ours.

    "Land Use" is DEFERRED taxes that have to be paid when the land is sold or developed.

    As long as the land stays in the family, the taxes do not come due.

    Developers use "land-use' to speculatively buy large parcels to hold on to .. and then when they are ripe for development … they get approval for the development and pay the back taxes.

    That allows them to buy an hold far more land than if they could not use the land-use tax option.

  37. " It seems to me there must be some advantage in saving good farmland that is close to markets."

    you and EMR need to talk. He seems to think you can grow food in close locales to each NUR.

    you might could grow cranberries in a NoVa bog but I'm betting the yield would be terrible compared to more prime growing places.

  38. Anonymous Avatar

    we don't seem to have a good way of determining what a "good" subsidy is

    ———————————

    This is my argument from day wone.

    There ARE ways to do it. But we become so politicized that we refuse to think rationally.

    There ARE ways to REQUIRE public policy to seek the lowest net cost, and tests we can use to verify.

    But the fact is that NEITHER party has the slightest interest in lowest net cost, because BOTH parties are most interested in aggrandizing their constituents at the expense of the other side.

    BOTH sides are more interested in stealing from the other side than they are in doing what is best and cheapest – even if it involves a subsidy.

    RH

  39. your typical tax & spender does not think in terms of stealing from the "other side".

    they see taxes as fair game for "good" causes. we all pay taxes so they can be spent for "good causes".

    then we have the folks who wait to get the subsidies.

    but neither side is thinking consciously of stealing from the other side only competing for the money in the pot – which is fair game.

    That's how our transportation system works.

    We collect from everyone and then unelected folks decide what's the best projects to spend it on… and if one of those unelected folks happens to have a business partner working for Tysons Partners.. it's a 'win-win'.

    The idea that that transportation money comes from other people is not even on the radar screen.

  40. Anonymous Avatar

    "neither side is thinking consciously of stealing from the other side only competing for the money in the pot – which is fair game."

    If they are competing for the money ideologically rather than looking for the best possible deal (for everyone, lowest net social cost), then they are stealing.

    There are ways to find out what that cost is, and some of them involve subsidies, some of them involve fees.

    But we will never find that lowest cost if we don't agree that it is what we neeed to be looking for, as opposed to whatever suits the party line.

    RH

  41. " If they are competing for the money ideologically rather than looking for the best possible deal (for everyone, lowest net social cost), then they are stealing."

    when you buy something like a tractor or insulation for your home are you thinking about "stealing" or just looking for the best deal regardless of whether or not it is "best" with respect to your criteria?

    when you take a tax deduction, are you worried that you might be 'stealing'?

    I don't think so.. you probably do what everyone else does.

    if that's what you do – and in EVERY CASE – you believe you are correct and honest and those that disagree are incorrect and dishonest and trying to steal..

    eh.. you need to reassess your approach.. IMHO.

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    "when you buy something like a tractor or insulation for your home are you thinking about "stealing" or just looking for the best deal regardless of whether or not it is "best" with respect to your criteria?"

    ——————————–

    I'm not spending public money or other people's money if I get it wrong.

    If I take a tax deduction I HOPE that someone has done the net social benfit calculations and that they are not out of date. a tax deduction is a form of subsidy, presumably designed to correct a market deficiency.

    In the system space you describe the total costs for the tractor are still TC = PC + EC + GC

    Total cost is the cost of the tractor (To me AND the dealer) plus costs external to the tractor like how far do I have to truck it for maintenance, resale value, etc, plus government costs: tax on the shed to keep it in.

    Realistically, my trade space is limited to four tractor dealers, or whatever used tractors I can locate. The tractor dealers are equivalent to political parties in that they have certain dogma they follow, believing that it will lead to success.

    You can be certain that if you order parts for a John Deere you will have them the next day: but they might cost more than the tractor. You can buy a Ford tractor for half the price and it will last half as long, but you get to drive a brand new tractor twice as often.

    But despite their biases, when push comes to shove they talk dollars and cents. Unlike political parties, they are constrained from making wild and unsupportable claims, by false advertising laws.

    And why is that? Because it amounts to stealing. You cannot sell R4 insulation and claim it is R12.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar

    if that's what you do – and in EVERY CASE – you believe you are correct and honest and those that disagree are incorrect and dishonest and trying to steal..

    ————————

    I never said anything about WHO is correct and who is incorrect. That can happen on either side. If either side is deliberately pushing something, or some policy that they know to be incorrect, then they are deliberately attempting to steal. They are looking for an advantage in public policy that they know reults in higher overall costs, but lower costs or higher profits for themselves.

    The more common situation is that they deliberately push some policy because it suits their temperment, and they don't CARE whether they are right or wrong.

    If it happens that they are wrong, then they are still getting something undeserved at someone else's expense. We have a situation where both parties might be better off, if only the policy was not pushed quite so hard.

    As long as they are getting what they want, (usually for free) why would they have any incentive to look for a better solution?

    Im' not sure which is worse, stealing through ignorance, not knowing what is yours and what is someone else's, or deliberately stealing.

    We cans stop stealing through ignorance by simply making proerty rights stronger, better defined, more numerous, and equally protected.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    It is not my approach, I didn't invent this stuff.

    Every year there are more and more examples of these ideas being put into practice. Sometimes, well, and sometimes not so well.

    The changes in fishing rights are an example. Promoting toll roads is NOT an example of these ideas in practice, Toll roads are a bastardization of market pased government policy.

    RH

  45. " If either side is deliberately pushing something, or some policy that they know to be incorrect, then they are deliberately attempting to steal."

    how do you know if they are "deliberately" doing "something"?

    do you think the folks that come up with subsidies for farms or oil exploration or solar panels or insulation are "deliberately" coming up with a way to "steal"?

    do you think that the fact that solar panels cost more than coal-generated electricity is a " a market deficiency"?

    Why is taking tax money from one person to give to another to insulate their attic a "market failure"?

    how would you know ?

    tell me the subsidies that are justified to "correct" "market-deficiencies".

    do you think the folks that support these kinds of legislation are "stealing"?

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    "But not everyone was thrilled with the prospect of carloads of wine drinkers cruising Clifton's narrow roads. The Occoquan Watershed Coalition worried that weddings and events at the converted house and barn on Yates Ford Road would hurt the environment, and county officials feared the winery would prompt other commercial ventures to flood the rural hamlet, bringing traffic and noise.

    Unhappy neighbors fought the winery's plans, delaying its construction for more than a year before Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board upheld in early December a ruling that the owners were performing genuine agriculture. Fairfax County officials are monitoring similar disputes in Albemarle and Fauquier counties but do not expect to intercede further, said Deputy County Attorney R. Scott Wynn.

    "We don't have the authority we need to restrict the kinds of events," Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon S. Bulova (D) said. "But we did agree that the winery would provide something new for Fairfax County."

    Last year, the General Assembly passed a law that limits the ability of local governments to regulate farm wineries except for safety risks and noise levels."

    Washington Post
    ——————————–

    here is a situation in which which producers (a minority) have been put aupon by neighbors (a majority) in several county jurisdictions. The state has stepped in and said, "No, you cannot simply claim unverified potential future damages, as a reason to prevent these operations. We have noise laws and we have safety laws, you can use them."

    I believe the system to protect minorites worked, in this case. Maybe,someday, EMRs prediction will come true and we will hae hard data on every vehicle that enters and leaves a winery. We will know if they have more crashes than other vehicles, and then we can take appropriate action based on knowledge instead of hyperbole.

    Another issue arises in the case of the Fairfax winery. It is on porperty that has been in one family since the original land grants to Lord Fairfax. The winerey prooposal was developed as a way to pay $750,000 in inheritance taxes on 37 acres of undeveloped land.

    How does that happen? How can you wind up with $750,000 in taxes on undeveloped and unused land. Land which is sitting there doing nothing, and which you (apparently) can do nothing with, without a portracted administrative and legal battle with people who don't own it.

    Of course they would rather see nothing happen there: it benefits them and costs them nothing. And then we wonder why "our farms" are going away. They have to make enough money to pay the land use tax AND the inheritance tax. you can't do that in Fairfax with 37 acres of soybeans that net $25 an acre, and yet, what other options are allowed?

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar

    " If either side is deliberately pushing something, or some policy that they know to be incorrect, then they are deliberately attempting to steal."

    how do you know if they are "deliberately" doing "something"?

    ——————————-

    When you have measurable results that show what they are doiing is counterproducive and they still use force to push their agenda.

    You cannot sell R4 isnuylation and call it R12 because we have agreed on ways to measure insulation.

    We can agree on ways to measure public policy. the only reason not to look for ways, is if you are intent on stealing.

    RH

  48. " We can agree on ways to measure public policy. the only reason not to look for ways, is if you are intent on stealing."

    I don't see that policy involved with subsidies and tax breaks.

    why not?

    does that mean the folks who want the subsidies and tax breaks are stealing if they don't insist on a way to measure?

    where is the standard process for determining that subsidies and tax breaks are not stealing?

  49. what if that winery was a development with 50,000 cars a day traffic or it need 50,000 water/sewer hookups?

  50. Anonymous Avatar

    does that mean the folks who want the subsidies and tax breaks are stealing if they don't insist on a way to measure?

    ——————————

    You still don;t get it.

    EITHER side might be guilty of creating a situation that is more expensive than the best available situation.

    It can be too expensive if you have TOO MUCH subsidy or tax break and it is possibe to be even more expensive with not enough subsidy or tax break.

    If you are not willing to look, not willing to set up a measurement scheme for your policy you are far more likely to come out wrong than right, simply because there are many ways to go wrong and one way to be right. If you are not willing to look, not willing to subscribe to the national bureau of wights and measures, then I have to assume that your scale is crooked.

    I believe there is a correct amount of subsidy for mass transit and there is a correct amount of that subsidy that should come from auto drivers.

    But we don;t have any constituency of CITIZENS FOR THE BEST MIX OF TRANSPORTAION. What we have is the anti-Auto crowd, the pro-auto crowd and the pro-public transit crowd, and the crowd pushing for The Favorite Project of the Month, each pigging out at the trough of mutual detriment.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    what if that winery was a development with 50,000 cars a day traffic or it need 50,000 water/sewer hookups?

    ——————————-

    I doubt that would happen on 37 acres, but development was the only other option. Had development been proposed instead of a winery, the same people would have been just as opposed.

    Why? Because opposition basically costs nothing.

    Once again, this had nothing to do with infrastructure. people complained about too much traffic on their little clifton Roads, but if you had proposed to fix the roads they would have oppposed that, too.

    What they wanted was to control empty space they did not own, and keep it empty. You can blow steam about infrastructure costs until you are blue in the face, but this isn;t about that, it is about control of someoen else's property, pure and simple.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    does that mean the folks who want the subsidies and tax breaks are stealing if they don't insist on a way to measure?
    —————————–
    Pretty much.

    ===============================

    where is the standard process for determining that subsidies and tax breaks are not stealing?

    ———————————-

    We don't have one. And as I continually point out, THAT is the problem.

    We could have one if we wanted it. There are ways to measure such things. We can agree on ways to measure without prejudicing the outcome.

    But no one really wants to know. We want what we want, and that usually involves trying to get something for nothing, which I call stealing.

    There is no reason we can't have due process in zoning cases. someone who really thinks he has been wronged ought to be able to make the case to a jury of citizens who don't happen to be his neighbors, or elected officials.

    There are lots of sytems and measure ments we cold put in place but we don;t do it because we don't want them. We don;t want them because they would limit our ability to get and usurp power, for the purpose of stealing from others.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar

    I've suggested that builing rights do not belong to the county government to dispense: they belong to the people.

    County government has the authority and obligation to plan adequately for development. So let the county plan for 6000 DU or whatever, and plan to put them wherever they think best.

    This will raise objections from everyone else who thinks the developers are getting a windfall. So instead of giving the development rights to the developers, give them proportinately to everyone.

    Developers get thier plan approved on technical merits only: drainage, traffic, sewer usage, flood plain protection, etc. Once approved technically they are good to go except for one thing.

    They have to BUY the required number of development rights from the citizens who hold them.

    If the citizens are not in favor of the development they won't sell. if the payment offered by the developers is high enough, they will sell. If county government does not plan for enough development the price will be high and if it is too much development the price will be lower.

    The county can collect a sales tax on the amount sold. If they plan too much development their revenues will go down, and if they plan too little development, their revenues will go down.

    There can be no argument about what is the RIGHT amount of development,because it will be exposed in the costs. And it is self regulating.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar

    You can imagine the hand wringing in FAuquier. Because of a court case in Fairfax and Dillons rule, their hands are pretty much tied in preventing winery developments.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    "Morgan Stanley has “definitely recouped all of their investment,” says Tim Healy, EnerNOC’s chief executive. “They were ahead of the game within months.” Since he’s selling monitoring – not expensive new lighting or higher-efficiency furnaces – it was a relatively low upfront cost. (Morgan Stanley confirmed EnerNOC’s account of EnerNOC’s work and the savings uncovered.)

    EnerNOC’s business is all about using information technology to monitor buildings and ferret out inefficiencies. Mr. Healy calls is data-driven energy efficiency.

    “Let’s put a super computer inside that building that processes all the ways energy is being used, the way air is being used, the way lights are being turned on or off and try to optimize that,” he says. (No people wandering around the building with notepads are needed. The company can monitor carbon monoxide levels to figure out how many people are working in a certain space.)"

    We can use the same idea to monitor the efficiency of socila policy.

    RH

  56. " We don't have one. And as I continually point out, THAT is the problem.

    We could have one if we wanted it. There are ways to measure such things. We can agree on ways to measure without prejudicing the outcome."

    it has not happened – anywhere than I know of.

    when something like this has not happened on a national or worldwide basis – over the last 100 years.. there's more involved that folks not wanting to do it.

    more likely.. is the likelihood that such analyses and modelling are extremely complex and subject to a lot of things that just are not certain.. and as such wildly different results just from making minor tweaks to some of the inputs.

    such a model would be worthless unless it could be validated which means you would take inputs from years ago and it would, using those inputs, correctly predict the actual outcome.

    ain't going to happen in our lifetimes.. and not because people would not want to do it.

    Every person or group that is opposed to subsidies would LOVE to prove once and for all how wrong they are if they could.

  57. with subsidies – it's not deciding how much of a "good" thing you want – it's how much of a bad think you can stand most often.

    You never get to the point where someone/everyone agrees that the subsidy is "just right".

    Nope.. the same group that started out saying it was wrong/bad .. just becomes more and more convinced as time goes by.

    and the group that benefits from it – basically has a conflict-of-interest.. they cannot be opposed to something that benefits them.

    you'd call that stealing.

  58. Groveton Avatar

    The scams in Richmond never end…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002344.html

    NoVA + Montgomery County + Prince George's County + DC = Columbia, the 51st state.

    It's time we left this 400 year old game of 3 card monte being played by the clown show in Richmond.

  59. well in the instance of the Composite Index, I agree with Groveton …and we'll find out how McDonnell "rolls" on this – keeping in mind that McDonnells base and GA muscle is at least partially reliant on RoVa.

    It's turning out that McDonnell is headed directly into the frying pan on the budget.

    A real test of his self-avowed conservative principles….

    and Grovetons choice for the clown show – right?

  60. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton – Kaine has proposed to freeze the LCI, which would screw Fairfax County out of $50-60 million. Let's see where the Fairfax County delegation is. Will they fight for the County?

    Also, let's see where the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce is. Will it fight for county businesses or, as a couple of well-placed executives have told me, work to sell out the County in favor of out-state in exchange for out-state opposition to any restrictions on development?

    TMT

  61. Anonymous Avatar

    it has not happened – anywhere than I know of.

    ——————————-

    Similar policies are used to mange fishing rights and sufur emmision in the US.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar

    "analyses and modelling are extremely complex and subject to a lot of things that just are not certain.. and as such wildly different results just from making minor tweaks to some of the inputs."

    ——————————-

    So you think we can do a better job with guesswork and mob rule.

  63. Anonymous Avatar

    "Every person or group that is opposed to subsidies would LOVE to prove once and for all how wrong they are if they could."

    ———————————

    And if it turns out the other way, would hey agree tomore subsidies?

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar

    "Every two years, the formula is recalculated, using updated data on enrollment, income, retail sales and real estate values. "

    Another example of actual measurments being used to modify policy.

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar

    We have played by the rules," she said. "And it's not fair to change the rules ….

    ———————————-

    You mean like changing zoning rules?

    RH

  66. I think if there were a way both the pro-subsidy an anti-subsidy people would use it – each to prove their point, each to lobby for changes in the formula that would favor their interests.

    In fact for each subsidy there usually are ad Hoc analyses – for each side anyhow.

    You end up with uncertainties, things you can't really measure, things you can measure but there is not agreement on the value, etc, etc, etc.

    there is a process. It's not a standard, uniform one and the arguments do change and evolve.

    people work for or against based on their interests.

    neither side thinks of their efforts as 'stealing'. the pro-subsidy people think they are justified and that the subsidy is a benefit and the anti-subsidy people think pretty much all subsidies distort the marketplace and in the end do more harm than good.

    and yes.. the issues are ultimately decided by a vote – with ample input from lobby folk.

    there is no benevolent "decider".

  67. schools are heavily subsidized although most folks don't think o schools as subsidized.

    when is the expenditure of taxes – an "investment"

    People make the argument that the money for schools is well spent because it keeps people out of prison and produces more self-reliant, future taxpayers.

    but NEVER have I EVER seen the argument that spend MORE or LESS money on schools would have a proportionate impact on prisons and taxpayers much less a detailed accounting of money spent on prisons verses money gained from educated people who become taxpayers.

    The Composite Index is – a subsidy.

    A hated one at that in NoVa and indeed one in which some say "stealing" is involved.

    The fundamental argument hardly ever stated up front much less "proven" by some analyses is basically – do yo want to subsidize education in the poorer parts of RoVa or do you want to subsidize welfare and unemployment benefits.

    If we really could find out what the "correct" amount of Composite index subsidy was optimal – do you really think that the folks in NoVa would not jump at that chance?

    If the folks in RoVa could prove that a composite index that benefited them twice as much as now would not jump at the chance to make that case?

    So.. characterizing each sider as folks who would "steal" is an interesting thought.

    For instance, Groveton and TMT will likely – readily agree that the basic idea of the composite index is 'stealing' and that freezing the index or altering to favor RoVa even more is MORE stealing.

    The other side will seek to show that the State – which derives revenues from NoVa in proportion to it's wealth since taxes are a percentage of your wealth whether the tax is sales in income …. will actually end up paying MORE for welfare, unemployment and prisons.

    But no where is there the kind of analyses that Ray swears should exist and be used to determine the "proper" level of subsidy.

    There ARE analyses. NoVa has theirs an RoVa has theirs and neither side accepts the other sides analyses.

    This is not an unusual situation.

    In fact, this is normal in most situations involving subsidies.

    because.. again.. there is no supreme "decider" of which analyses is fair and correct and which one is simply an enabler of 'stealing'.

    For instance, you've heard those who oppose the CI point out that it 'unfairly' …. "measures" the "wrong" things while the other side insists that no – it's measuring the 'right' things.

    who is right?

    who decides who is right?

    well… at the end of the day.. the elected officials in Richmond will do what?

    well.. they'll once again engage in "mob rule" – right?

    How else would it be decided?

    Groveton's solution is to forcibly remove the "clowns" from the issue.

    stay with me here…

    and if somehow, NoVa was successful in removing their region from the hated CI or changing the equation – what would happen?

    All across Virginia, the donor localities would demand the same deal that NoVa got.

    and in the end – RoVa would get less "subsidy" but the decision would NEVER have been decided by both sides agreeing to use ONE method of measuring – because at the end of the day – a substantial number of people simply do not agree with the basis for the subsidy to start with.

  68. here's another idea just tossed on the table (speaking of 'back on the roadway'):

    RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the
    Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability be directed to
    develop a plan to toll certain highways. Such plan shall embrace
    multiple highways in the Commonwealth, with toll proceeds to be used
    for highway construction projects.
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+HJ68

  69. Such plan shall provide that (i) tolls will be collected electronically, without the use of any toll booths or barriers, affording users the unobstructed use of an open road; (ii) the amount of tolls shall be set so as to generate $1 billion annually; (iii) revenues generated by such tolls are to be used exclusively for highway construction within the planning district wherein they are generated; (iv) tolls may be differentiated between different types and classes of vehicles; (v) construction financed through such tolls shall be dedicated exclusively to the relief of traffic congestion and economic development, based on accepted engineering and economic principles; and (vi) discounts may be permitted for commuters, interstate travelers, and other frequent users. Such plan shall include, but need not necessarily be limited to, the following facilities: the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia; Interstate Route 395 between the Capital Beltway and the Potomac River; Interstate Route 66; Interstate Route 95; Virginia Route 895 (Pocahontas Parkway); Interstate Route 295; Interstate Route 64; Interstate Route 81; Interstate Route 664; Interstate Route 77; and Interstate Route 85. Any facility that has an existing or proposed toll shall have that toll factored into any new toll proposed by this plan.

  70. so my question for Ray –

    Who is responsible for showing that the tolls are more inefficient and costly than a tax increase?

    If the folks who oppose the tolls don't make the case then whose fault is that?

  71. and for Groveton:

    note the patron of the bill to toll roads:

    HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 68
    Offered January 13, 2010
    Prefiled January 12, 2010
    Directing the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability to develop a plan to toll certain highways. Report.
    ———-
    Patron– Rust <—–

    as in:

    Delegate Tom Rust (R-Herndon)

    Party Republican
    District86: Counties of Fairfax (part) and Loudoun (part)

    I wonder where Chap Peterson is on this legislation?

  72. Anonymous Avatar

    Who is responsible for showing that the tolls are more inefficient and costly than a tax increase?

    —————————–

    Part of th eproblemis we don't have those systems in place.

    GAO does it for the feds, presumably on a more or less non-partisan basis.

    This particular one is and ABSOLUTE NO BRAINER.

    We have a gas tax collection system in place. No subcontractors, no vendors, no toll gantries, no GPS

    RH

  73. nope. show me the data. if you think it is more efficient, then tell me if it is twice, four times or only 1.2 times as efficient.

    or is it .8 times as efficient?

    everyone one of those gas pumps has to be set to correctly calculate the tax for each sale.

    how many overhead gantries would we need instead of gas pumps that have to calculate tax?

    you're just doing what you say others are doing.. just claiming something is true without proving it.

    gotcha!

  74. Anonymous Avatar

    What have we come to dept.

    My Mom lives in N.H. But she comes to stay with my Brother in Centreville during the winter.

    She went to DMV to get a local ID, for some reason. She's got her NH Drivers license, passport, birth certificate, social security card, and copies of bills that have een sent to her at my brothers adress.

    DMV would not give her an ID because she did not bring with her a copy of her bank statement.

    Do they think this 84 year old woman in a wheelchair is a terrorist? That she is going to impersonate someone?

    ————————–

    She still drives her van, which is wheelchair equipped, but she figures her license won't be renewed next time.

    Fairfax aparently offfers transportation for handicapped persons, but with $18,000 a year in income, she earns too much money to use the service.

    RH

  75. Anonymous Avatar

    It is 100,000 times more efficient becasue we don't have to do ANYTHING to collect more money using the system in place.

    If you have to spen even $10 to put in a whole new bureaucracy, new tolling stations, new collection systems it is equivlent to starting a whole new business. You'll be lucky to see a profit in three years.

    And you still have to keep the gas tax system in place because it isn't going away.

    You gonna do this with video image capture of license plates? Gonna make it interoperable with other states, so you can toll out of staters, and get you money in maybe, three months rom now.?

    This is such a dumb idea it isn't evene worth analyzing.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar

    everyone one of those gas pumps has to be set to correctly calculate the tax for each sale.

    Nope, I think they collect it at the wholesale level.

    Even if you change the gs tax to a sales tax, how is that different from keepin gtrack of every license change or every toll change, or every transponder change.

    Except it is a lot easier and cheaper.

  77. Anonymous Avatar

    you're just doing what you say others are doing.. just claiming something is true without proving it.

    Fine, Go ask the greenway operators how much of their revenue is used up just collecting the revenue.

    Do the same for a couple of other tollways.

    Then compare that to how much money the state spend to collect the gas tax as apercentage of whatit brings in.

    The gas tax is widely recognized as one of the most efficient taxes anywhere.

    RH

  78. WalMart had to invest BILLIONS of dollars to go to a system that used bar codes but they spent that money because they knew it was going to save them money in the long run.

    If Ray was running Walmart, they'd still be collecting cash and using cash registers because the system "is already in place".

    in other words – we can't change because we're too invested in existing ways ….

    surprised the man is not lamenting the cruel way we tossed away buggy whips…

    🙂

  79. Anonymous Avatar

    If Ray was running Walmart, they'd still be collecting cash and using cash registers because the system "is already in place".

    ——————————-

    False analogy.

    The arcode sanner only reads the item.

    The buyer can and does still pay cash at Walmart.

    But no matter how they pay, the Tax, which is equivalent to agas tax, is calculated and added to the bill automatically.

    What you are talking about doing – IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT – would be the equivaent of adding GPS to all their shopping carts and charging customers an additional amount for wear and tear, based on distance.

    Tolling is always going to cost more and be less cost effective, because it is in ADDITION to a system we already have.

    RH

  80. no gps needed so scratch that cost.

    the bar code and scanning systems at WalMart are IN ADDITION to their previous systems Ray.

    got it?

    this is how you go forward.

    when the scanners where first introduced.. they were still using the old registers until the scanners bugs were worked out.

    even now.. some items STILL have to be done manually so you still have BOTH systems in place.

    and now.. Walmart is moving into RFID … which is the SAME TECHNOLOGY that open road tolling is using.

    Now why would WalMart start ADDING RFIDs to their existing scanning system?

    well.. because.. in the end.. they believe if done right, it will save money.

    the gas tax is "collected" at the rack – sure enough…

    but the companies have to take credit cards and cash and then reconcile how much needs to be calculated and reported.

    Behind that 'simple' system is a complex system that involves a sophisticated network computer system…

    The transponders would be using that same system….

    pretty much like buying a product online… or at those service stations where you wave your card in front of a reader.

    If your credit card is an RFID then it would work a lot like an RFID transponder.

    You've speculated that the transponders are more costly but you actually provide zero evidence.

    If you had evidence, for instance, you could say with some certainty that tolls cost twice or 3 times or 1/2 as much as the gas tax but you don't have this info and so you really have no proof…at all..

    and this demonstrates EXACTLY the problem with comparing two different ways of doing things that you say should always be analyzed…

    TOLLS are not going to go away. In all likelihood they are going to be even more widespread as the years go by.

    how much will it cost Walmart to go to RFID technology?

    Do you think they won't use RFID because it would be wasteful to operate a system that at least for a while uses RFID AND bar codes?

  81. Anonymous Avatar

    no gps needed so scratch that cost.

    Doesn't matter. Whatever it is is in addition to hat we already have.

    Incidentally, in London where they use cameras, the cost of collecting the money is about one third of what they collect.

    RH

  82. Anonymous Avatar

    Now why would WalMart start ADDING RFIDs to their existing scanning system?

    No, it is because barcodes are going to be replaced by RFIDs. RFIDs offer theft protection as well as identification.

    But no matter how the product is identified, you still have to collect the money.

    Right now, you don't even have to know who buys the gas, you still get the tax.

    There is NO REASON on god's green earth to go forward with this because it is a DUMB AS TOAST.

    It buys you nothing and costs you plenty. What you are talking about is putting an ADDITIONAL system in place, NOT A REPLACEMENT system.

    Nobody is talking about getting rid of the gas tax, what we are talking about is a BRAND NEW TAX IN ADDITION.

    Whey would we EVER want to do such a thing? I would much rather pay double on each tax and cut the number of taxes in half, than add a brand new tax just so I can make the ridiculous claim that at least I didn't raise the gas tax.

    RH

  83. " When you sign a debit card receipt at a large retailer, the store pays your bank an average of 75 cents for every $100 spent, more than twice as much as when you punch in a four-digit code."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/05visa.html?pagewanted=all

    so tell me why they have two systems and one charges twice as much as they continue to use both?

  84. Anonymous Avatar

    you don't have this info and so you really have no proof…at all..

    and this demonstrates EXACTLY the problem with comparing two different ways of doing things that you say should always be analyzed…

    ——————————–

    I have no prof because I haven;t done the analysis. If Idid the analysis I would NOT be out looking for proof that tolls are more expensive. I would be doing an even handed analysis using all the data I could find.

    Just because I have no proof doesn't mean there is a problem with the analytical method. that is a logical fallacy.

    If I did an evne handed analysis, I have very little doubt that the result would show you have to be nuts to consider tolls when a gas tax does the SAME EXACT THING, only better, because it charges by weight, speed, driving habits, excess HP, bad tuneups, and wasted idling time, IN ADDITION TO charging for miles driven.

    And you don't need any hardware. you don't even need an odometer that works. No data needed, no privacy intrusion.

    ——————————-

    Now, if you just want to come out and say that we need to track everyone 24 hours a day for terrorist and security reasons, well that's different. If you are going to do that ANYWAY, and that is the real purpose of spending a collossal amount of money on tracking and identification, then you might as well collect taxes while you are peeping on people.

    RH

  85. re: "dumb as toast"

    not as dumb as someone driving a 15mpg SUV solo to/from work every day expecting others to pay for more lanes.

    so it's cheap to collect the gas tax but then it gets wasted fourteen ways from Sunday….

    sorta like making money hand over fist and then blowing it on a worthless product.

  86. " Just because I have no proof doesn't mean there is a problem with the analytical method. that is a logical fallacy"

    no it doesn't but if others think the system is fine and you do not, then the burden is on you to show the goods..

    complaining and whining then saying you don't have to do an analysis over what you're whining and complaining about boils down to you whining and complaining and not much else.

    eh?

    you're the one that says people are stealing but when asked to provide some proof – you say "hey, I didn't make this stuff up"…

    punt, punt, punt

  87. Anonymous Avatar

    so tell me why they have two systems and one charges twice as much as they continue to use both?

    ———————————

    What has that got to do with toll roads?

    The credit card company charges for a different kind of service as the atm service. Walmart uses both services because they want both customers.

    But the road tolling suystem is going to cost twice as much or more, and you are not capturing any new customes becasue they all pay the gas tax (ATM) anyway.

    The question isn't why woul you offer both, it is why would you collect from the same people twice?

    Give it up, Larry, this is a useless argument. IEvenif you win and we wind up with widespread tolls, we all lose.

    RH

    RH

  88. Anonymous Avatar

    You have no proof either so my argument agiands is as good as you argument for.

    The camera system in london costs as much as a third of what it takes in just to operate.

  89. Anonymous Avatar

    when asked to provide some proof – you say "hey, I didn't make this stuff up"…

    You are conflating two arguments.

    One argument is wheter my proposed system of market based government policy enforcement works.

    or failing that, whether we can achieve the ame thing another way.

    The second argument is whether tolls roads are more cost efective than raising an equal amount of money with the gas tax.

    The second argument is so ridiculous I refuse to continue it.

    As for the first one, this is pretty easy. I have no problem with setting up some toll roads as an experiment. And as part of the enabling legislation, dictae how qnd what information must be collected and published concerning theri operations and efficiency metrics.

    If the efficiency metrics do not meet certain goals (equal to the relative costs costs of collecting the gas tax), then the enabiling legislation expires and so does toll collection.

    I don't have to provide any proof one way or another because I have no pony under the manure. All I have to do is suggest a way to get the evidence. If you turn it down, then it must only be becasue you do not wish to know the truth.

    As far as toll roads are concerned, you claim there is a pony under all that manure. but you don't want to get dirty in order to find out.

    RH

  90. Anonymous Avatar

    Haiti's government appears paralyzed.
    WAPO

    It's been paralyzed for decades.

    Port au Prince Flattened.
    WAPO

    And this is a surprise?

    ——————————-
    Haiti has been a disaster as long as I can remember. This was another New Orleans, waiting to happen.

    And now that it has happened, NOW we call it a disaster.

    The Haitians need money and aid, right now, but WE are the ones who need help.

    RH

  91. well no… since they have already built toll roads and they plan on building more – if you have a problem with that – then you have to prove that they are a bad deal if you want the to stop.

    otherwise.. they'll keep on building them and you'll keep on fuming – right?

    There's a bill in the General Assembly to essentially set up a statewide toll authority and to set the tolls such that they not only pay off the toll road itself, but it generates extra money to built new/more roads.

    Then the gas tax will be used to fund only maintenance and operations and toll will be used for new roads.

  92. but why would WalMart offer customers an option that cost WalMart more money to process than the other option?

    Isn't it because some people prefer to pay in a method that is more costly to WalMart to process but they offer it anyhow?

    Some people prefer tolls to taxes.

    or to put it another way – if 80% are opposed to higher taxes and only 40% are opposed to tolls – then you take the path of least resistance and you charge what it takes to get the revenues and pay the operational expenses.

  93. I'm sure TMT and Groveton have seen this but if not:

    " VOTERS FIGHTING FOR FAIRFAX

    NEWS AND NOTES FOR HOMEOWNERS, PARENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS, AND CITIZENS INTERESTED IN HELPING SECURE FAIRFAX'S FAIR SHARE OF STATE RESOURCES."

    http://votersfightingforfairfax.blogspot.com/2010/01/talking-points-for-general-assembly.html

  94. Anonymous Avatar

    "Current Analysis

    2006 Gasoline
    Tax Revenue
    (declining)
    $425,000,000
    approx
    (at .22 cents per
    gallon)

    Anticipated
    Toll Road
    Revenue
    (increasing)
    $1.6-1.8
    billion
    (4.5 million registered
    vehicles @ .01 cents
    per mile)"

    ————————

    This is from a view graph in a presentaton to the state of Michigan proposing RFID toll roads.

    Most cars get on mileage in the range of 20 – 25 MPG. So please explain to me how $.01 per mile is materially different from $.22 per gallon.

    Isn't that mathematically exactly the same? Except youget the gas tax EVERY WHERE and you only get the tolls on toll roads.

    RH

  95. Anonymous Avatar

    Next slide:

    Business Objectives of the Program

  96. Anonymous Avatar

    Business objectives (cont)

  97. Anonymous Avatar

    Conceptual architecture:

    – Tagged Object Domain

    -Antennae and reader Domain

    -Data Capure and Raw data Filtering domain

    – Business Process Integration domain

    -Enterprise and Business Application domain

    -Integrated Object Directories
    –DMV RFID database
    –Criminal Justice Database
    –Traffic Control System
    —Express lanes
    —Electronic Road signs
    –Truckers Billing system
    — Power and Telephne utilities
    –Road commision and accounting sytem.

    ——————————–

    Or, you could just have a gas tax.

    RH

  98. Anonymous Avatar

    lessons learned and best practices:

    -out of state passenger
    vehicles and possibly some recreational vehicles are
    exempt from the toll. Or you could have a gas tax and at least collect from those than need fuel while in state.

    -If .22 cent gas tax is removed in favor of toll road, that makes
    gasoline the cheapest in the region. And that makes exactly what difference, since the price per mile is the same? Oh, that's right it makes a difference because the state will pocket MUCH LESS money after you pay for the RFIDs, etc. Note that this implies statewide toll roads with antennaes and sensors everywhere.

    -This encourages tourists to spend their limited vacation dollars
    where it’s cheapest to get around. No it doesn't, it isn't any cheaper to get around. Besides, you can;t get rid of the gas tax anyway, because the purpose of tolling is to raise ADDITIONAL evenue, not to replace the present gas tax which we know is insufficient.

    ——————————-

    If I was a state official and these clowns made this pitch to me, I wold be laughing until tears rolled dwon my cheeks.

    RH

  99. Anonymous Avatar

    Or you could just ask people with experience.

    THE FATAL FLAW IN THE FINANCING OF PRIVATE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN
    AUSTRALIA
    John L Goldberg
    Honorary Associate
    School of Architecture, Design Science and Planning
    The University of Sydney 2006
    NSW, Australia

    This paper is an analysis of the financial models for three toll road projects in the Sydney
    region, namely the Cross City Tunnel (CCT), the Lane Cove Tunnel (LCT) and the M2 Motorway (M2)…..With respect to traffic engineering, the models
    have a common property, namely that the traffic forecasts are correlated more with the
    financial outcome required than with proper regard for traffic engineering practice.

    Financial solvency of these projects is the main matter of concern. Can the long term debt of
    a project be amortized within the concession period?…..It is found that there is
    zero likelihood that the debt can be amortized. This matter becomes more serious when it is
    realized that the variables which give rise to the cash flows do not take account of the time
    value of money. …..The financial models examined in this paper exhibit a considerable amount of creative accounting with the object of distorting and suppressing unfavourable financial outcomes.

    e-mail: [email protected]

    http://wwwfaculty.arch.usyd.edu.au/web/staff/homepages/pdf/johngoldberg_ATRF06_summary.pdf

    ——————————

    Read it and weep. Like I said, Tolls are a TERRIBLE replacement for the gas tax.

    RH

  100. Anonymous Avatar

    "The financial reality of this strategy should start to be appreciated by superannuation
    funds in the interest of their members. Over eight years of operation, the average return
    on investment (ROI) for the M2 Motorway was only 3.5% pa, whereas the average cost of capital was 11.8% pa over the same period.

    ………………………

    On the other hand, in 2005 the Macquarie Bank received performance fees amounting to
    $91.59m, based on an increase in market capitalization value of its Macquarie Infrastructure Group of $3355m."

    —————————–

    If you thought securitization of mortgage debt was a bad idea, you are going to love securitization of what amounts to public debt.

    RH

  101. Anonymous Avatar

    "The timely release of the financial models, if objectively analysed, would have revealed the
    adverse financial outcome of the projects. The contractual arrangements, which in some
    cases have involved the closure of public roads to compel usage of the tolled facility,
    would
    have also been revealed, together with the fee and profit expectations of the private partner. Commercial confidentiality continues to provide the excuse to prevent scrutiny and possible
    reappraisal of the transport regime of which these toll roads are part."

    RH

  102. Anonymous Avatar

    NCTA Unable to Sell Bonds

    Triangle Business Journal article confirming that the NCTA is unable to sell bonds for the toll road. Financial markets will have to settle before they can move forward.

    RH

  103. Anonymous Avatar

    "THE CREDIT-MARKET COLLAPSE AND POLITICAL OPPOSITION have all but killed the U.S. highway-privatization trend. A 2008 deal reached by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for $12.8 billion died in the state legislature, and an initiative by New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, to consider a long-term lease of the New Jersey Turnpike failed to gain political traction. An agreement to sell Chicago's Midway Airport for $2.5 billion collapsed last month as the buyers, including a Citigroup (ticker: C) investment fund, couldn't get financing and ended up forfeiting a $126 million deposit to the city of Chicago."

    http://online.barrons.com/article/SB124183159872002803.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D1

    RH

  104. Anonymous Avatar

    "But one state, Indiana, has a leg up on its peers. Three years ago, it sold the Indiana Toll Road, a 157-mile highway that stretches across the top of the state, for $3.8 billion to Spain's Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte (CIN.Spain) and Australia's Macquarie Infrastructure Group (MIG.Australia)……………

    Indiana is looking particularly smart because toll-road revenue now seems less dependable than it appeared to be just a few years ago. "Toll-road traffic declines in this recession have been more severe than in any other post-war recession," says Peter Samuel, editor of TollRoadNews, an online transportation Website."

    RH

  105. Anonymous Avatar

    "AUSTIN – Four years of simmering frustration boiled over at a recent Texas Senate committee hearing with just one thing on the agenda: toll roads.

    An overflow crowd bashed and booed the Texas Transportation Commission in front of mostly like-minded senators. For eight hours, lawmakers and audience members alike questioned the state's increasing reliance on tolls. "

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031107dnmettollroads.3a7e57c.html

    RH

  106. yup.. Texas tried the VDOT approach of running amok over the citizenry and it backfired.

    more and more folks are opposed to toll roads – AND they are opposed to gas taxes….

    AND they blame government

    AND they have NO ANSWERS

    indexing the gas tax and immediately adding 25 cents a gallon will catch us up.

    now, go make it happen.

    here's one you might like:

    HB971:

    Transportation funding and administration. Provides additional funding for transportation by (i) imposing a the motor fuels sales tax rate of 1% for highway maintenance, (ii) increasing the state sales tax in Northern Virginia by 0.5 percent for transportation projects in Northern Virginia, and (iii) increasing the recordation tax in Northern Virginia at a rate of $0.40 per $100.

    http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb971/

    now before you get all excited – note that it's for highway maintenance first and second… it will bring in about 200 million a year.

    what the bill will do is what Jim Bacon said… provide an indexed tax to insure that we have adequate maintenance money.

  107. Anonymous Avatar

    "…indexing the gas tax and immediately adding 25 cents a gallon will catch us up."

    —————————–

    Finally you concede my point.

    It is the same amount of moeny one wy or another.

    Let's at least collect the money the cheapest way possible, since it comes out of the same ultimate pocket anyway.

    Toll rods are nothing but elaborate subsidies for the toll road operators.

    RH

  108. Anonymous Avatar

    here's one you might like:

    HB971:

    ———————————-

    Why would I like that?

    It is yet another version of having NOVA pay more than its share AND pay additional for its own special needs.

    IF NOVA is going to pay fo rits own needs, fine, but exempt it from ALSO paying for the rest of the state.

    NOVA pays for NOVA, ROVA pays for ROVA. How do you think that will fly.

    Why do yu think ROVA want so "postpone" the apllication of the distribution formula for education funds.

    Because THIS TIME they come out on the short end of the stick.

    RH

  109. Anonymous Avatar

    "…indexing the gas tax and immediately adding 25 cents a gallon will catch us up."

    So would implemening toll roads, uniformly, except you would probably need tolls equvalent to 35 cents a gallon to make up ofr the cost of collecting tolls.

    'Id put the political possibility of UNIFRORMLY implementing toll roads (at the rate required to meet the needs) to be about the same as the political possibility of raising the gas tax.

    RH

  110. Anonymous Avatar

    I don't like that idea, and Im not even a a NOVA resident.

    RH

  111. what you ultimately get ….is what starts out as proposed legislation.

    There are legislative proposals in the current GA to index the gas tax AND to create a Va Toll Authority.

    One of them does not have the word "tax" in it's text.

    wanna guess which one?

    Now it COULD BE that at some point Mr. McDonnell steps forward and says that after taking a long and hard look at the finances for transportation that he cannot identify reforms sufficient to recoup the billion dollars in cuts and that future roads will not get built unless other ways are find to make the funds available to build them.

    I think it is MOST UNLIKELY that he was support increasing a general tax on everyone and much more likely he'll be looking at targeted user fees – fees more tightly connected to the services – so that the folks that want the services will be the ones who pay.

    The NoVa legislation basically allows NoVa to tax itself for more transportation.

    They've already had that ability as there is already on the books a law only for NoVa (and HR) for a 1% local income tax dedicated to transportation only.

    So.. NoVa has to opportunity to become more self reliant and not send anymore money to Richmond to be laundered for RoVa use.

    That's your choice. What your choice is not – is a statewide tax increase which is dedicated to NoVa. Won't happen.

    Make your choice. Stop complaining.

  112. Anonymous Avatar

    The French High Speed Train System, TGV has announced that it is closing several routes due to bad financial performance.

    RH

  113. Anonymous Avatar

    fees more tightly connected to the services – so that the folks that want the services will be the ones who pay.

    ———————————

    If that is what he does, that is NOT what he will be doing.

    Only the new services will be affected by these User fees. As a result only NEW roads will have to be subjected to a much higher standard of utility.

    Those people who hae ALREADY RECIEVED roads that would have flunked the same test, not only get off scott free, but they get additional support from those that not only pay the higher gas tax, but also pay the toll/tax for new roads.

    It is a mistake to try to tie fees for roads more closely to theyusers precisely because those that benefit from new roads includ far more people, businesses, and places that just those that actually drive on them.

    This is the SAME ARGUMENT that is used to justify broad based support for transit: even those who do not ride transit and mey not even be wll served by it still benefit (somehow), so they should help pay.

    RH

  114. Anonymous Avatar

    "US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced plans Wednesday to scrap the Bush administration's rigid cost-benefits test for funding transit projects. … "

    Baltimore Sun

    "The (Transit Policy) Change We've Been Waiting For!"

    Green and Save blog.

    RH

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT