Bob’s Right: Build Those Roads

Fellow blog readers and Baconauts. Please help me with this.

I was just getting over Barack Obama’s surrender to the conservatives on tax cuts when I opened this morning’s newspaper and learned that Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell is really a Keynesian and is willing to blow out the state’s troubled debt obligations to get roads for which two of his previous fund-raising schemes have failed.

And to think that just two Sunday’s ago, the Right Rev. James A. Bacon was delivering another one of his stern sermons that Virginia will pay an estimated $594 million in 2012 to service its $9 billion tax-supported debt. According to our deficit watchdog, Virginians are paying more to service debt than ever before and the state “cannot afford this nonsense any more.”

Here’s the new nonsense: McDonnell will ask the state to spend $400 million immediately on roads and bridges while borrowing another $2.9 billion over the next three years for more transportation needs. Of this, some $150 million will come from last year’s budget surplus and $250 million that an audit revealed the Virginia Department of Transportation has already had.

McDonnell’s justification and that of his transportation chief Sean Connaughton is that construction costs and bond financing is cheaper than it has been in decades and there are bargains to be had.

Actually, I tend to side with them on this. Virginia’s roads needs are significant if the state is to continue to position itself for growth not just tomorrow but over the coming years and decades.

Building roads now will mean more jobs now, not some years down the pike. You can’t completely toss John Maynard Keynes out with the baby’s bathwater, anyway. He does make sense.

The proposals would create a state infrastructure bank with $400 in surplus and other funds. That’s not a bad idea since many countries around the world have created similar institutions to fund transportation needs. Changes in state bond laws would also be needed.

While I like the idea of stopping moaning about deficits and debts and getting on with projects that create jobs and could enhance the state’s chances for prosperity down the road, there is some concern about McDonnell’s topsey- turvey policy-making. I am not all that concerned about the “New Fru” tut-tutters like the Right Rev. Bacon. If you listen to them, nothing would ever get done besides a bunch of hand wringing.

But McDonnell’s two previous plans to boost transportation funding — privatizing ABC stores and offshore oil drilling — are kaput. What’s happened is that Connaughton, one of the few serious pros in McDonnell’s administration, has convinced Bob to get off the dime. These inconsistencies are worrying and still show that McDonnell’s is a second-stringer when it comes to governing.

In any event, I see the news as welcome.

Peter Galuszka


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

43 responses to “Bob’s Right: Build Those Roads”

  1. I like the infrastructure bank where localities can do their roads but have to pay the money back.

    But the other part is pure debt that WILL affect the State's credit ability including it's ability to borrow in the future

    and..

    we have to pay it back and where is the money going to come from to pay it back?

    McDonnell could have combined a gas tax index to fund his borrowing but instead – he' apparently punting that decision downstream….

    Is this more generational debt transfering?

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter is quite correct in predicting that I would disapprove of McDonnell's plan to finance new road construction through borrowing. Frankly, I think the idea is reckless… nay, insane.

    I'll grant that there is a morcel of logic in the reasoning that construction costs will be cheaper if we build now, as opposed to waiting until we have money years from now, the economy is stronger and the costs have risen.

    But the $2.9 billion that Virginia would borrow under this plan is only a drop in the bucket compared to projected "needs" as defined by VDOT. We'll be borrowing at a time when state debt capacity is already strained. We cannot allow ourselves to start sliding down the slippery slope of debt accumulation when Boomergeddon is looming. (I'll post more on that subject tomorrow.)

    There is another reason for skepticism: We need to do a total re-think of how we pay for transportation improvements and how we decide which improvements get funding in the first place. The prevailing assumption is that nothing fundamental has changed, that the post-World War II paradigm of "suburban sprawl" (segregated land uses, lower density, disconnected pod development) will prevail in the years ahead. I don't believe that to be the case. We need to be funding the transportation improvements of the future, not the past.

    My gut tells me that this transportation funding idea is huge mistake.

  3. Jim is correct about the process that is used to determine transportation needs and funding.

    The major drivers of major infrastructure projects are urban congestion and the need for more rush-hour commuting facilities.

    Not surprisingly, those commuters believe that the "State" – i.e. other taxpayers should pay for what they want rather than themselves – note the opposition to tolls – that would assign costs to the people who use the roads.

    So, for instance, we have the folks down Hampton Roads way – raising holy heck over the idea of putting tolls on their roads to help pay for additional infrastructure.

    And of course, they are opposed to increased taxes to pay for them either.

    and when you ask them how those roads should be paid for – they invariably say the "state" should do it – like the State has an independent source of money that does not come from taxpayers.

    All across Va, it's the same mindset.

    In each locality – they expect the "state" to build their roads – as if the taxes the state gets – does not come from them.

    That's why I like the infrastructure bank idea.

    Give the locality the ability to get the money they need for their transportation needs but make them figure out how they will pay for it.

    That means basically going to their own taxpayers and proposing a referenda to pay back the bonds that the state would make available.

    The State could – grant localities – different methods of taxes or tolling to generate the money but it would purely be up to each locality to decide if they want to pay for new roads or not.

    The only roads the State should actually be paying for is the interstates and primary roads that criss-cross the state as major connecting roads but the local and even regional commuting roads should be the responsibility of the localities.

    McDonnell actually has an opportunity to push things in that direction – and it would be true reform – and it would put more accountability at the local level for land-use and development because they would also own the transportation costs.

    This is how the state essentially went broke to start with – by trying to keep up with every localities wish list of roads they wanted built – but wanted the state to pay for.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Well, I don't think anything is wrong with you. It just doesn't make since when 20+ states are now going back to gravel roads to save money so they could use this saving for any road work on the main highways.

    It's just getting to be too much. Need to read a new book just out about Americans who actually take a stand against tyranny (based in part on real people & events). It’s a thriller so I recommend it.

    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

    There are ways to cut back to pay for this big expense, if the politicians wanted too.

    Great article, Peter.

  5. I'll grant that there is a morcel of logic in the reasoning that construction costs will be cheaper if we build now,

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

    And cheaper still if we had done it years ago. The bonds wold be paid off by now. You probably cold have built the ICC for all the money and time wasted in meetings for the last forty years.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    I think we should put a moratorium on all new roads and road expansions. Road "improvements" don't alleviate traffic, they make more traffic.

    We should be putting our transportation money into sustainable systems like high speed rail and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

    The age of the automobile is over.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    The prevailing assumption is that nothing fundamental has changed, that the post-World War II paradigm of "suburban sprawl" (segregated land uses, lower density, disconnected pod development) will prevail in the years ahead.

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

    In order to change that, you will consign some areas to being perpetual backwaters and others to being (I hate this overused word) "vibrant" urban centers which suck up all the money and resources.

    Some will become instant millionaires and others will be perennial and permanent land paupers. If it happens, it will be the biggest socially engineered wealth transfer ever seen.

    I have yet to hear anyone describe how the benefits and costs of this experiment will be fairly divided.

  8. fairly divided? who said everyone was entitled to equal shares?

    Some folks are born rich and some are not.

    some folks inherit money and land and some do not.

    some people work very hard to better themselves and others do not.

    no where in that conundrum is anyone "entitled" to anything.

    Sometimes you get things you do't deserve and sometimes you lose things you didn't deserve to lose but there is no one around to make sure you get your equal share but you.

  9. Road "improvements" don't alleviate traffic, they make more traffic.

    We should be putting our transportation money into sustainable systems like high speed rail and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

    The age of the automobile is over.

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

    Absolutely, if you want to reduce traffic, just put up a forest.

    Just don;t expect to conduct much commerce there.

    Go back over the last two years and watch how traffic volume declined with the economy and how it is now increasing with the economy.

    The Age of the automobile is not over. We are not going to uninvent it. It may become more expensive, it may be powered by wood pellets, but it is not going away.

    Rich people will have them and poor people won't. Poor people will stay poor because they won't have an automobile to help them do their work, as a result automobiles will be more valuable than ever.

    High speed rail will be the most expensive way to move people and goods ever concieved of, and its expense means that it is no more sustainable than fusion in a magnetic bottle. for certain limited applications high speed rail has a niche, but to think that high speed rail and bicycles will replace the automobile is simply delusional.

  10. fairly divided? who said everyone was entitled to equal shares?

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

    Moron.

    We are not talking about what people have.

    We are talking about what you take away from some and give to others.

    You are talking about two guys with 500 acres of soybeans, each with rights to build 100 homes. Suddenly, one day, one of them is entitled to build 500 homes and the other is consigned only to soybeans forever, because someone decided that plan is more sustainable – for the better good – etc.

    How did one guy work harder than the other? How does the guy stuck with the soybeans participate in the – better good?

  11. no where in that conundrum is anyone "entitled" to anything.

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

    You are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. and that means their rights don't get increased at your expense unless they pay you for them.

    Even now, native Indian tribes are getting recompense for promises made to them that were later taken away without proper compensation.

  12. 20+ states are now going back to gravel roads to save money

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

    Wait till they get the bill for runofff, from EPA. They are not saving money by going back to gravel.

  13. This is how the state essentially went broke to start with –

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

    No, the state went broke by using a tax based on gallons instead of dollars, and by not adjusting the gallons based tax to reflect realities that changed in 40 years.

  14. The major drivers of major infrastructure projects are urban congestion and the need for more rush-hour commuting facilities.

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

    And we think the cure for this is yet more Urbanism and yet more specialized rush hour commuting facilities that drag around yet more empty seats all day?

    Wake up!

  15. Give the locality the ability to get the money they need for their transportation needs but make them figure out how they will pay for it.

    ==================================
    This is the stupidest idea I ever heard.

    This is a recipe for What Louisiana looked like before Huey long or Missouri before Truman.

    "My interest in transportation and communication is as lively as it ever was, so that I have noted with approval the consideration being given the bills pending in the Congress to modernize our major highways within 10 years. I repeat, I have a very great interest in transportation and communication.

    Every citizen agrees with me that the need to bring our roads and streets up-to-date is urgent. The longer we wait, the greater the cost will be.

    Every year our outdated and wornout roads cost us time and money; and, much more important, they cost us lives. Traffic accidents and road congestion together cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year."

    Harry Truman

  16. What are we talking about, here $800 a year, per family?

    It is dirt cheap, compared to what it will buy you.

  17. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I think someone hit a nerve with Hydra. But, I tend to agree with him on this topic.
    We need transportation improvements badly. We have to pay for what we need.
    There is a solution to the property issue. I have spent the past two years creating formulas and documents so I could start a company that transfers development credits.
    The soybean farmer would be paid for each density credit he wanted to sell, ( his nest egg isn't spoiled after all) and the guy across the street can buy them to give his project the additional density it may need to make public transit feasible. No, I'm not suggesting high speed rail in the country, simply making a point.
    I think the bigger issue is the political disaster when they try to determine where all of that money is to be spent.
    Hampton Roads needs money. NOVA needs money. Heck, even (not so)little Chesterfield needs money. Who decides the priority of projects?
    I too am tired of listening to localities screaming "the state is supposed to pay for roads", but I think they continue this rant to remind us all they are NOT interested in the transportation business.

  18. At the risk of being called a "moron" again – I'd point out that all land is not created equal in it's ability to be developed.

    keep in mind that "developed" is not the same as "enjoying" your land.

    "develop" means that you need public facilities – roads, schools, EMS, libraries, etc and localities and states have always had the right to designate where they will provide facilities and not.

    For instance, water/sewer is not provided everywhere nor or major roads yet both of them can dramatically affect the value of property.

    I'm not a big supporter of TDRs for ANY LAND ANYWHERE because you actually can screw up future development patterns if they are done on a hodge-podge basis without any rhyme or reason except the land is "undeveloped".

    TDRs need to target specific kinds of land for specific significance – like historic or cultural, or natural or .. a growth boundary, or parkland…etc…

    just extinguishing the development rights without rhyme or reason has some downsides to it.

    In terms of transportation.

    We have a corrupt system for determining priorities and more and more people are loath to pay increased gas taxes – that will disappear off to Richmond to fund some project for some other locality.

    The prioritization process at the state level is broke in part because the folks making these decisions are unelected and unaccountable for their decisions.

    This kind of process leads to localities making land-use decisions that have significant transportation infrastructure consequences and they think and they tell their citizens that VDOT will fix it.

    The problem is that VDOT simply does not have the money to fix them all and in fact went broke in an attempt to do just that.

    In 46 other states – the state DOT does not maintain local roads.

    It is the responsibility of the locality – so when they make land-use decisions – they also own the transportation consequences.

    That's the right way to do that in my view.

    Regional roads – the same way – agree as a region on what roads need to be built – and we have a way to do this – they're called MPOs.

    The ONLY roads the state should be doing is state level – interstates and primary roads and I'd say that VDOT and the State should put the question to the voters – taxes OR tolls.

    Whatever wins on the referenda gets implemented.

    We are told that we have a 100 billion dollar backlog of roads.

    I'll make a bet – that if all those roads were going to be toll roads that we'd only have a 10 billion dollar backlog.

    People want roads. They don't want to pay for them.

  19. The funding issue is separate from the environment/social issues and the priority issues.

    Transportation is a system, not a competition between modes. Pronouncements that the auto is dead or trains are sustainable do not represent the complex truths we need to understand and face. We cannot afford to waste time or resources on such agenda driven drivel.

  20. …has some downsides to it
    =======>===========
    Is the understatement of the century. I've seen families destroyed by it.

    It assumes doing nothing is better than doing anything.

    Extinguishing rights is stealing them and giving them to someone else.

    It presumes a value for agriculture where there is none.

    It punishes the very people who preserved land the longest.

    It makes a travesty of the most basic ethical principles.

    If there is an upside, who gets it?

  21. Look at the situation in Catlett. Failed septic systems for 50 years. Finally a builder offers 15 million to solve the problem, for the hole town. But we don't want 950 homes. How about 650? No. How about 450? No, we extinguished all but 78 of your building rights.

    And every time the county says no, the price and size of the homes goes up, and the builder gets blamed for mcmansions.

    It is infreakingsane. It is snob zoning, just as my supervisor said he wanted.

    There are hundreds of ways to fix catletts problems, but for fifty years the answer has been no. Now, its lets look a gift horse in the mouth. Dogma has overtaken thinking in government leaders here.

  22. Not all land is created equal in its suitability for development. How does making the development rights unequal prevent that?

    Of course with development rights I could be rich. As long as no one else has equal rights. But if all land is fundamentally developable at some minimum , then my riches are suddenly not so much. The price drops for such undesireable sites as mine. Suddenly, selling them to Andrea becomes more attractive. As it is, they have been "extinguished" (stolen) and there are none to sell.

    Of course the suddenly new fact that there are people like Andrea willing to buy valuable development rights pretty much puts a lie to the argument that there was no need to pay for them when they were extinguished. After all, they weren't real, not being recorded. They were only promises made in order to get the first zoning in place.

    Lord knows we would have chaos if government kept (our) word.

  23. Larry, it us not and never was an argument about infrastructure. It is about power and control. The rest is a red Herring.

  24. Other locality my foot.

    Its one thing to stand in line. It is quite another to discover you have been permanently kicked out of line.

  25. I've got roads in my neighborhood smaller than the bike paths in Fairfax.

  26. " Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the most conservative members of the House, said he has concerns about taking on more debt, particularly if its means exceeding the state's self-imposed cap. He said he wants to review a list of proposed projects — which he said should involve congestion mitigation and economic payback or shouldn't be on the list."

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/

    Delegate Marshall has it right in my view.

    It's one thing to argue about projects we can't afford to build unless we raise taxes but it's even worse to borrow money without a clear idea of what the priorities are.

    It's bad enough to have what amounts to a slush for for politicians to pay with … quite enough to replenish that slush fund by borrowing money.

    I can't believe the people who call themselves "conservatives" other than Mr. Marshall have let the cat get their proverbial tongues on this truly bad idea.

    We are said to have a 100 billion dollar "need" for transportation but we have yet to name the most important 4 billion dollars worth BEFORE we decide they are important enough to go borrow the money.

    You "conservatives" out there.

    What the hey do you have to say about your "conservative" anti-tax Governor?

    Groveton, my man, you voted for this man because you said Creigh Deeds did not understand how to fund transportation without a tax increase.

    Tell me again how the McDonnell plan is "better"?

    ha ha ha ha… all I can say guys

    is WHEN do we REALLY GET

    a REAL fiscal conservative to run Virginia?

    cuz…guys.. I hate to break this to you but Mr. McDonnell would know fiscal conservatism if it was a hot poker and he backed into it…..

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  32. Anonymous Avatar

    I observe:

    This post – and some of the comments – brilliantly documents the stupidity and hypocrisy of the current Commonwealth of Virginia “leadership.”

    It also documents a complete lack of a rational thinking and the absence of a moral rudder on the part of both leaders and followers.

    Beyond shining a bright light on stupidity and hypocrisy, there are some shortcomings:

    1. The post starts with an inaccurate title.

    Governor Bob is NOT “Right.”

    He is not correct about transportation AND

    He is not ‘right’ on any fact based political left to right spectrum as Mr. Gooze makes very clear.

    McDonnell is at best a pandering political Humpty Dumpty.

    “What I believe today and what I propose you do tomorrow is whatever sounded good to my handlers yesterday.”

    2. The post comes to an unfounded conclusion.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns are in large part CAUSED by past dysfunctional transport decisions and actions as The Right Reverend Mr. Bacon makes clear in his comment.

    Building more of the same transport infrastructure will just make Mobility and Access that much more costly to achieve when functional settlement patterns are agreed upon and functional transport systems are designed. (I wish Dr. Risse would finally finish WHAT COMES AFTER THE CAR?)

    Many of those who think building more roads is a good idea suffer from the Spacial Bipolar Syndrom about which I learned in the Big Apple on Friday.

    3. Jobs now AND jobs later?

    Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

    There is no chance that the 50s are coming back, neither are the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and ESPECIALLY NOT the early 00s. Get over it.

    4. Jobs now?

    It would be far more productive to subsidize VDOT staff, consulting engineers and road contractors to help citizens:

    Move workers closer to jobs and Services AND move Urban Jobs to places that can achieve Critical Mass and Balance inside Clear Edges.

    Since the answer is NOT more roads, the need is to retread the education and skills of those who would be put to work tossing good money after bad.

    Instead of building more roads put those in need of employment to work protecting riparian land, building granny flats, tearing up lawn grass and planting gardens.

    Building compost bins, fencing cows out of streams, establishing recycling stations, building walking, biking and small vehicle trails … in fact do almost ANYTHING other than building more roads.

    5. The cost of construction is down.

    That is because there are a growing number who are smart enough to understand that building more roads IS NOT a good idea. It is throwing money that Agencies do not have after money they wasted before.

    6. Connaughton is “one of the few serious pros.”

    He is professional politician and so is everyone else pushing clueless citizens downstream toward The Great Falls.
    All in all this post and comments are a perfect example of why every Citizen Media outlet needs a Litmus Test.

    We all look forward to Prof. Risse establishing a Litmus Test for settlement pattern comments.

    Observer

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    I see Google is giving others a “the letters did not match…” error message but then posts the comments anyway…

    I agree with Observer, no matter how many times he has to say it.

    In addition, it always comes back to another filibuster by those who have unfounded fantasies about the value of NonUrban land for future Urban land uses.

    Larry Gross is right.

    To be useful for Urban use requires far more investment than what land owners, developers, builders and the owners of dysfunctionally scattered dwellings (Wrong Size House in Wrong Location) have paid in the past.

    Far more land has ALREADY been developed for Urban land uses than can be efficiently used in the foreseeable future. That was made clear over a decade ago in THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE.

    There is no basis for valuing land based on future Urban land uses when there is a shrinking market.

    No one can ‘steal’ what never existed outside a speculative bubble – all-be-it a bubble that has existed since the illusion emerged that anyplace one can drive a Large Private Vehicle is a good place for an Urban land use.

    Dr. Risse has demonstrated in THE CURRENT TRAJECTORY that property values are declining for existing residential structures that are in dysfunctional locations. That will continue and take the air out of the 80 year land speculation bubble that has driven dysfunctional human settlement patterns outside The Clear Edge.

    NERE

  34. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Density transfer does not extinguish property rights. That process is purchasing agricultural easements.That is done by the locality, not a private business.
    The people who sell credits are compensated for their POTENTIAL density, not the AG value. The transfer ratios are one of the many incentives to participate.The landowner can also choose between several types of easements; from perpetual to five years. The length of the easement determines, in part, the value of the credit.
    In some cases, after the easement period, development is appropriate in accord with a local comprehensive plan and there's even a formula and process to convert it.
    Also, The credits will be sold to developers in the appropriate areas…like city centers, UDA's, revitalization areas. Areas that can support the density. NOT in fringe areas. There is nothing whatsoever "Hodge-podge" about it.

  35. the density is done in appropriate areas but how land is chosen for the credits is hod-podge.

    ANY "vacant" land is considered acceptable.

    All "vacant" land is not equal.

    "vacant' land that is close to the density areas and could serve as a de-facto urban boundary is not the same as land that is 20 miles away and likely to remain rural for a hundred years or longer.

    And how you know this is true – is how that land is valued.

    What is the process for valuing the "development rights" of land?

    Are the development "rights" on land 20 miles into the country the same as development "rights" on land that is 100 feet from water/sewer-served development?

    From a developer perspective, he/she is going to buy the cheapest development rights they can in exchange for density.

    That means they are going to go way out to find land that has the least potential and thus the development rights are much cheaper.

    That's a problem.

    "setting aside" land that is ALREADY not very developable is dumb.

    Va learned this the hard way with Conservation Easements being put on things like wetlands which were already "conserved".

    Don't get me wrong.

    I am a stronger supporter of the CONCEPT of density trading and buying development rights but it's got to be careful and rational.

  36. There is no basis for valuing land based on future Urban land uses when there is a shrinking market.

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

    There is no basis for valuing land based on agricultural land uses when there is a shrinking market.

    how do you dtermine the value of land unless youlet the MARKET determine both the valuation and use of the land?

    NERE is parroting a bad and meaningless EMR argument, right down to the spelling, or misspelling.

  37. Density transfer does not extinguish property rights.

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

    Are you out of your mind? Do you actually believe that? Because if you seriously beleive that, I've got a stack of county documents I'd like to show you.

    If your argument is that current density transfer only moves (existing) rights then you are correct. But don't try to tell me that the hundreds of thousands of building rights previously extinguished did not result in density transfer, whether planned or unplanned, explicit or not.

    Now, if you are willing to go back to square one, and give back all the property rights previously extinguished, and re-establish the new current rules, then you would have a case.

    And that is essentially what Oregon tried to do, reset the rules to 25 years ago (or the period of direct family ownsership) and then let conservationists pay for property rights to be extinguished.

  38. The people who sell credits are compensated for their POTENTIAL density, not the AG value.

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

    Good thing, because the AG value is near zero. And that is what is left to them after the easment is processed.

    As for a five year easement, who would buy one? It is my understanding that there is no tax credit, except for permanent easements.

    Again, this statement is misleading. They are paid for the potential of whatever density credits they have left. Say you started with 400 acres, and zoning was passed with the the implicit promis that you would be limited to not less that one house per four acres. Later that one hundred homes gets reduced to 20 homes 17of which must be grouped onto an area no larger than 40 acres, but with the implicit promis that 3 will be administrative in nature, not requiring a full subdivsion plan. Later the administrative lots disappear, and an additional requirement is made that in order to get yu seventeen homes the remaining acreage must be placed in conservation easement (so that it can never be rezoned).

    After all of that, someone shows up at the door and offers you (very much reeduced cash) for your REMAINING density credits.

    You probably cannot afford the development and subdivision requirements anyway, and probably don't want to. You realize that now the two homes for your children are now out of reach.

    Really, what options are left to you?

    The fact is that you are NOT compensated for the potential density, or anything like it. I understand that what Andrea and others are trying to do, the think is for a good purpose, but this sort of misrepresentation does them no good.

    What a farmer wants from his land is a stream of income, not a one time lump sum.

    Not unless the lump sum is big enough to generate a stream of income AND gets him shut of the expense of owning and operating the land.

    people who get "compensated for their 'desnity credits' " get neither of those things.

  39. ANY "vacant" land is considered acceptable.

    All "vacant" land is not equal.

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

    JEEZ, Larry, it is bad enough, and you want to make it even worse. What you are suggesting is yet another in the list of ways that (what we now recognize as valuable property rights) are being hooliganized.

  40. Easements being put on things like wetlands which were already "conserved".

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

    How soon we forget.

    And how were they "conserved"?

    They were conserved by extinguishing property rights without compensation.

    They were conserved by others who claimed a higher (but unspecified and uncompensated) value for what they now claimed as a public good: wetlands.

    And yet, the VAB at kennedy space centers was built on wetlands, so it is not as if there is anything INHERENRENTLY unusable about them, only more expensive.

    The fact is, that being more expensive to develop was NOT keeping them from being developed, and for that to happen (at no expense) property rights in the form of 'density grants' were mereely extinguished [stolen].

  41. Are the development "rights" on land 20 miles into the country the same as development "rights" on land that is 100 feet from water/sewer-served development?

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

    Now, no.

    Originally, yes, because there was no sewer.

    Your question ignores both the history and the future of property rights already extinguished.

  42. Jobs later in scattered locations accessible only by cars that workers cannot afford and that are driven from scattered houses supported by scattered Services? Fat chance even if there is ‘growth.’

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

    Even if you are right, that is your opinion, and it should have no bearing on the decisions made by others.

    I dont see that my neighbor who drives a fleet of cars and trucks, including a Bentley, an Aston Martin, and assorted Mecedes, is going to have a problem with this.

  43. I am a stronger supporter of the CONCEPT of density trading and buying development rights but it's got to be careful and rational.

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

    In other words, you are in favor of trading as long as you control the market.

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT