• Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Homestead Exemption: It Masks Out-of-Control Spending

    John L. Knapp, senior economist at the University of Virginia’s Cooper Center for public policy, very nicely sums up the essence of the proposed Homestead exemption on property taxes:

    Given the large rise in property tax levies during most of the new century, it is not surprising that taxpayer frustration has found its way into the proposed amendment. It is unfortunate that a simpler solutionโ€”restraint on spending by local government โ€” was not adopted. Instead, market-driven increases in assessed values were used to bring in significant amounts of new revenue.

    Exactly. To put it a bit less diplomatically, the Homestead exemption is a superficial, quick fix for out-of-control spending at the local level. The constitutional amendment would allow local governments to exempt up to 20 percent of the value of residential property from taxation. If it passes the General Assembly for a second time this year, it will go to the voters as a referendum, and it’s hard to imagine that the electorate will not vote itself a tax break. But there is less to the tax break than meets the eye.

    There is no way to know which localities will avail themselves of the exemption and which will not, so in his essay, “Problems with the Proposed Homestead Constitutional Amendment,” Knapp calculates the impact if all local governments instituted the full 20 percent exemption. It’s an unlikely scenario, and the impact would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction spending upon the local mix of residential and commercial tax base. But the calculation shows how the logic of the amendment would play out.

    In 2006, Virginia owners of owner-occupied, residential properties paid $4,943 million in taxes, and owners of all other real property โ€” residential rental property, business property, commercial property, and farm property โ€” paid $2,694 million in taxes. If all local governments passed the full Homestead exemption, homeowners would get a $988.6 million tax break! But wait… Local governments would have to make up that money somewhere, most likely by increasing the tax rate. This could be achieved, Knapp writes, by increasing the statewide average tax rate from $0.85 per $100 of assessed value to $0.97. “Homeowners then would have a tax bill of $4,552.5 million, an amount 7.9 percent less than before the exemption.”

    Bottom line: The touted 20 percent exemption will net only 8 percent lower taxes. Think voters will know that figure when they’re standing in the voting booth?

    Knapp points out, rightfully, that shifting the tax burden to business would have negative consequences: “There may be some existing businesses that would seek a lower tax jurisdiction and some potential businesses that would be deterred because of the higher taxes.”

    To my mind, the worst part of the proposed amendment is that it is no more than a spackle-and-paint job over the underlying problem, which is out-of-control local government spending. As Knapp notes, revenues from the property tax levy have increased roughly 10 percent annually each year throughout the 2000s.

    One more year with a 10 percent increase will more than overwhelm the 8 percent benefit from the Homestead exemption. Unless we figure out how to attack the underlying problem, homeowners will get one year of relief, them find the tax burden squeezing harder every year.

  • The Wild One Bypasses the Mainstream Media

    I continue to be fascinated by the e-mail missives sent out by Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder as he bypasses the Mainstream Media to take his case to the public. His weekly “Visions” newsletter contains data that often gets filtered out in space-constrained news stories, as well as video sound bites that the televisions don’t have time to run. The merits of his arguments aside, the newsletter is one of the more sophisticated uses of digital media that I’ve seen employed in Virginia government. More savvy, even, than the communications coming out of the Governor’s office.

    Today’s edition is a good example. The Wild One takes after his nemesis, the Richmond School Board, for failing to provide handicapped access at city schools. Local news media had recently profiled a disabled child who cannot attend Fox Elementary School, the school nearest to his home, because money earmarked for design work to provide for an elevator had been spent for other unnamed projects.

    Since 1992, the year the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, according to the newsletter, the city has provided the school system with $125 million in Capital Improvement Plan funding. A 2005 study put the cost of making ADA improvements for city schools at $18,354,500. But the school board had set aside no money in either fiscal 2007 or 2008 for ADA.

    The minute-long video clip is vintage Wilder: “If the people of the city of Richmond are satisfied with the waste and the inefficiency in the school system, after I have pointed out and shown what is needed to be done … if they’re satisfied with the school board, then I’m satisfied too.”

    As Mainstream Media continue to retrench, is this is the future of political communications? Electronic newsletters, embedded with video clips …. filtered through blogs?

  • Virginia and Climate Change: Tim Kaine Brings the Global Debate Home

    The reality of climate change is beyond debate, the Times-Dispatch paraphrases Gov. Timothy M. Kaine as saying during the initial meeting yesterday of his commission on Climate Change.

    “Gone are the days of debating whether man-made effects exist” with global warming, the Virginian-Pilot quotes him as saying. “Those days are gone.”

    The first of the two statements is a non-sequitor. No scientist anywhere, to my knowledge, disputes that “climate change” is a reality. The climate of the earth has varied enormously over hundreds of millions of years, experiencing wild swings between tropical heat and glacial cold.

    The second statement is uncontroversial for the most part, except perhaps among right-wing talk radio hosts. There is little dispute that human activities have impacted the climate. The extent of the impact may remain an open question but no serious person would contend that mankind has had no impact whatsoever.

    The two statements sound profound but they are so vague as to be meaningless. We’ve heard it over and over that the science of climate change and global warming is “settled” and that there is a “consensus” among scientists. In reality, climatology is a dynamic field with many findings that don’t fit the prevailing paradigm and loads of scientific controversy over narrow questions. Here are how I, as an amateur follower of the debate, break down the issues:
    1. How rapidly is the climate warming? Yes, virtually everyone agrees that the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from the 16th to the 19th century. Virtually everyone agrees that the warming trend extended through the 20th century and into the 21st. The big question is, how much? Measuring the “average” temperature of the earth is not an easy task. We’re getting better at it, but measurement is far from perfect. One example: Many measurements are subject to the “heat island” effect. In the United States, many temperature sensors are located in airports. Fifty years ago, the airports were situated in the countryside. Today, those locations have been encroached upon by urban development that can raise the ambient temperature several degrees. It is a matter of some controversy how best to adjust for such trends. Meanwhile, there are many other other assumptions and adjustments embedded in global temperature calculations. Just last year, NASA was forced to make an embarrassing downward adjustment to its temperature record for the years since 2000 after a methodological flaw in its calculations was exposed.
    2. Are current temperatures unprecedented? In the current cycle, which follows a brief cold spell in the 1960s-70s that spurred fears of an impending ice age, it appears that we have reached levels not seen since… the 1930s. We could well surpass that decade — which immortalized the image of, “It’s so hot you could fry an egg on the pavement” — if temperatures keep rising, but the climate still won’t exactly be “unprecedented.” Average temperatures were just as high during the Medieval Climate Optimum.
    3. What is causing global warming? The earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. There are many non-human factors at work, including minor shifts in the earth’s orbit and cyclical outpourings of solar radiation (which affect the earth’s magnetosphere, which in turn effects the bombardment of cosmic radiation, which in turn effects cloud formation.) The question is: How much of the warming we are seeing now is the result from natural, cyclical processes and how much results from mankind’s release of C02 and other greenhouse gases? Teasing apart the impact of natural vs. manmade influences is exceedingly difficult.
    4. Global warming and sea levels. While the vast majority of climatologists are certain that planet is warming (though they don’t all agree on how much), it is far from clear what the impact will be. Widely feared — and a key justification for Virginia’s climate change commission — is the belief that icecaps will melt and sea levels will rise. While there is some scientific evidence for this view, there are many complicating factors. Rising temperatures may increase precipitation (e.g. snowfall) on major icecaps such as Greenland and Antarctica. Water (in the form of ice) could conceivably accumulate faster in the high, cold plateaus faster than it melts along the lower, warmer edges of the plateaus. The melting of the polar ice cap, by the way, would only contribute marginally to rising sea levels — to the extent that ice takes up a slightly larger volume than liquid water. My advice to polar bears: Move to the Greenland plateau. (Just kidding.)
    5. Global warming and the biosphere. Of particular interest to the Virginia study group should be the impact of Global Warming on… Virginia. As I understand the Global Warming models, manmade warming is expected to be most pronounced in cold, dry regions. Most, temperate regions such as Virginia should see less temperature change. It would be helpful to know to what extent will temperatures rise in Virginia, and to what extent will rising temperatures cause a change in habitat, affecting all manner of species? We should know to what extent indigenous species are vulnerable to temperature changes of the expected magnitudes. I have seen nothing on this. Another interesting question is the impact of higher C02 levels on plant growth. C02 is to plants what oxygen is to animals. If higher C02 levels promote plant growth, as I have read, this would be a good thing, I would think — unless you’ve got a kudzu infestation in the back yard.
    6. What can be done to avert Global Warming? Once we begin asking this question, we move out of the realm of science entirely and into the realm of public policy and ideology. There is widespread political support in Virginia for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, particularly among segments of the population comfortable with the idea of government exerting more control over the economy. But there are two sides of the climatic equation. Not only do humans emit more greenhouse gas than we used to, we are chopping down our rain forests, the world’s major repositories of C02. Why is the focus in Virginia exclusively upon reducing emissions? Why aren’t we asking what we can do to increase C02 absorption, possibly through reforestation?

    The biggest mistake we can make is to assume that the science is settled, that we “know” what the impact of Global Warming will be upon Virginia, and that we have to do something, anything, as in, intervene in the economy, to avert the approaching calamity. Climate change is an issue worth studying. But I see no justification yet for panicking into rash and ill-considered action.

    Regarding public policy, I think that free-market/fiscal conservatives can find some common ground with greenies on the Global Warming debate. Everyone should favor energy conservation, especially if energy conservation projects can be justified on a Return on Investment basis. State and local governments should be encouraged to conserve energy as a means to cut the cost of government… as well as to save the planet. Virginia should implement transportation policies that encourage people to drive less — as a strategy for reducing traffic congestion and cutting the pressure for more spending on roads… as well as to save the planet.

    If the Climate Change commission takes that approach, I’ll feel a lot more comfortable.


  • Hampton Roads/Tidewater’s Last Chance With HRTA

    My new state senator, John Miller (D-1SD), saw his bill to kill the HRTA die in committee. He had modified his own bill to end the unelected, unaccountable, unseparated powers Regional Government to exclude only The Peninsula. Still, it went down 10-4.

    Now, the only chance to kill the HRTA this session is the bill my delegate, Tom Gear (R-91HD), submitted. HB 829 redlines, repeals, the HRTA and its projects which don’t solve the transportation congestion here from the monster HB3202. The rest of HB3202 stands for the rest of the Commonwealth to suffer.

    The People of Tidewater still stand against this wrong plan, expansion of unnecessary government, and wrong taxes over 2:1.

    Yet, the bill isn’t even on the docket in the House Transportation Committee. Here are the committee members:

    * Del. Joe May (R-33) Chair
    * Del. Glenn Oder (R-94) Chair
    * Del. Mamye BaCote (D-95)
    * Del. Bob Brink (D-48)
    * Del. Bill Carrico (R-5)
    * Del. John Cosgrove (R-78)
    * Del. Adam Ebbin (D-49)
    * Del. Bill Fralin (R-17)
    * Del. Jeff Frederick (R-52)
    * Del. Tom Gear (R-91)
    * Del. Tim Hugo (R-40)
    * Del. Dwight Jones (D-70)
    * Del. Manoli Loupassi (R-68)
    * Del. Dave Marsden (D-41)
    * Del. Paul Nichols (D-51)
    * Del. Tom Rust (R-86)
    * Del. Chris Saxman (R-20)
    * Del. Ed Scott (R-30)
    * Del. Robert Tata (R-85)
    * Del. David Toscano (D-57)
    * Del. Shannon Valentine (D-23)
    * Del. Jeion Ward (D-92)

    So, why isn’t HB 829 up for a vote in committee? Who is afraid of what?

    My mayor, Gordon Helsel (Poquoson), and my local Republican precinct captain, Dr. Charles Flynn, were in Richmond yesterday to speak at the Senate.

    Perhaps more folks need to speak to both Republican and Democrats on the House Transportation Committee to get HB829 out for a vote. It’s just a vote for The People the need to see.


  • The (Sex) Show Must Go On

    Two weeks ago I took note that student organizers at the College of William & Mary wanted to host the traveling Sex Workers Art Show on campus, providing a venue for porn stars, strippers and other sex workers to deliver monologues and otherwise do their thing. (See “Hey, Can Students’ Parents Buy Tickets, Too?”)

    The big question in my mind was how President Gene Nichol would rule. Would he permit the show on the grounds of openness, tolerance and inclusion? Or would he reject it on feminist grounds that it “objectifies” women as sex objects? (Traditional canons of “good taste,” I assumed, were not even a consideration.)

    The Wooden Nichol has spoken: Tolerance and inclusion prevails over mysogeny and patriarchy.

    Meanwhile, according to the Daily Press, students are debating whether the sex show should be held on campus. The latest controversy is whether to allow members of the audience to film or photograph the show.


  • Has the Time for Bus Rapid Transit Finally Come?

    In a welcome show of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans have come together to patron HJ 98, which would authorize a joint subcommittee to study the establishment of Bus Rapid Transit corridors in Northern Virginia.

    While the chief patron is Del. Vivian Watts, D-Annandale, other patrons include conservative Republicans such as Delegates Bob Marshall, R-Manassas and Tim Hugo, R-Centerville, and Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax. States the resolution:

    In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall look into the cost, efficacy, and relationship to the regional transportation network of establishing bus rapid transit corridors in the Northern Virginia Transportation District, including the need for and issues related to establishing dedicated lanes, location of stations, accessibility and station parking, ridership projections related to levels of service, cost-benefit analysis with other transit options, and other relevant considerations.

    I don’t know if this comes as a response to the demise of the Rail-to-Dulles project, but it’s good to see that Northern Virginia legislators are showing signs of moving on rather than trying to fight a battle that’s already been lost.

    My only concern is that BRT should not be considered in a vacuum. It should be viewed in a larger context that includes human settlement patterns and congestion pricing. The subcommittee needs to ask itself, do certain densities and streetscapes lend themselves to supporting BRT better than others? Also, to what extent would congestion pricing in heavily traveled corridors and districts encourage people to ride the buses?

    One last question: Why limit the study to Northern Virginia? Isn’t BRT a potential option for the Hampton Roads and Richmond regions as well?

    With those provisos, the study sounds like an excellent idea. (Hat tip: Too Many Taxes.)

    (Cutline: Bus Rapid Transit in Bogata, Colombia. Photo credit: the Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space blog.)

  • Why Liberals Should Oppose the Homestead Exemption: It’s Regressive

    The ladies and gents with the Commonwealth Institute must be working overtime because they’ve weighed in with their third major research paper in the past couple of months. “How Property Taxes Hit Home” examines the impact of rising property taxes and a proposed remedy, the so-called Homestead exemption.

    As one would expect from a liberal-leaning think tank, the report emphasizes the regressive nature of Virginia’s property tax as well as the proposed remedy for that tax. But as a tax conservative, I have to concede that authors Michael Cassidy and Sara Okos make some valid points.

    As this chart shows (click on chart to view larger, clearer image) low-income homeowners pay a larger percentage of their income to property taxes than homeowners in higher income brackets.

    That would seem to be a strong justification for the Homestead exemption, which would allow local governments to exempt up to 20 percent of a homeowner’s property from taxation, to provide relief from soaring property tax bills. This proposed constitutional amendment, which was been passed by the General Assembly last year, must be passed again this year and then approved by voters in a referendum.

    So, what’s not to like? Business lobbies aren’t happy about the bill because it would shift much of the tax burden to commercial taxes. The actual amount would vary from locality to locality, depending upon the balance of residential vs. commercial property in the tax base. But Cassidy and Okos are more concerned about the implications for income redistribution. “By reducing the taxable value of all Virginiansโ€™ homes by the same proportion (20 percent),” they write, “the homestead exemption stands as a tax giveaway to homeowners with extremely valuable homes.”

    At the lowest end of the income scale are not homeowners but renters, constituting about a third of the population. Renters would gain nothing from the homestead exemption. Indeed, the authors point out, insofar as apartment buildings and other commercial housing would shoulder a higher share of the tax burden, those costs would be passed on to renters. In other words, renters could be losers from the exemption.

    If the goal is to provide tax relief for homeowners of more modest means, Cassidy and Okos argue, there are better alternatives, such as exempting the first $20,000 of a property’s assessed value. That would provide an equal break for all homeowners, not one that benefits wealthier property owners disproportionately, and there would be less blowback for renters.


  • Heavy Rail and Mobility for the Handicapped


    I apologize to readers who have over-dosed on the Rail-to-Metro story, but it is one of the most important public works project in Virginia history. All facets of the story need to be explored.

    This Youtube video comes from Pat Kane, a Northern Virginia urban planner whom I first met in the late 1980s when I started covering transportation and land use issues for Virginia Business magazine. Back then, some 20 years ago, Kane was a visionary for re-developing Tysons Corner into the kind of higher-density pedestrian-oriented community that many people have since come to favor.

    Kane suffered from a stroke a couple of years back, rendering him unable to type. But his mind is still lucid. Thanks to Youtube, he can still express himself. In this video commentary, he makes the case for Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail. Fifty percent of the population does not drive, he notes — that includes teenagers, the elderly and the handicapped, like himself. One benefit of heavy rail that has not been factored into the debate, he suggests, is its ability to provide mobility for non-motorists.

    All the more reason to go back to the drawing boards and get Rail to Dulles right.


  • Coming Up Next: “Moral Majority” Drive?

    I can’t believe this made it through a Democratic-controlled state Senate, even if the custom is to honor the requests of local legislators. A bill sponsored by Sen. Steve Newman, R-Lynchburg, would name a section of U.S. 460 in Lynchburg the Jerry Falwell Parkway, according to the News & Advance. The Senate approved the bill unanimously.


  • Simpson on Rail to Dulles: No More “Illusion and Delusion”

    Federal Transit Administrator James S. Simpson is taking a lot of heat for turning down federal funding for the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project. Critics now are accusing the Bush administration of undermining support for mass transit.

    There was a huge concern that the Dulles issue is not unique to this region, that this is an effort on the part of the administration to re-channel funding to other directions,” said Washington Metro General Manger John Catoe, according to the Associated Press.

    But Simpson is not backing off his decision. In fact, he’s taken off his boxing gloves and seems ready for some bare-fisted brawling. Northern Virginia ought to stop waiting for “the federal dole,” he said. “The jurisdictions can’t wait for a wing and a prayer for Congress to pass something.”

    “Maryland, Virginia and D.C. need to step up to the plate and take care of the state of good repair,” he said, referring to the massive maintenance liabilities the Washington Metro has built up over the years. Adding to a system without being able to take care of what it already has is irresponsible, he told AP. “It’s like the subprime mentality — people don’t care what things really cost.”

    Said Simpson: “What this administration is all about is being practical in making investments and not using delusion and illusion to push a mega-project through.”

    Sign that man up as a columnist for Bacon’s Rebellion!

    For the record: I totally support the concept of heavy rail in the Dulles corridor. But I believe the project as currently conceived is a disaster. The Kaine administration and Fairfax County need to radically re-think the financing of the project and the optimum land uses around proposed Metro stops, then start over.

  • A Glimmer in the Darkness

    It looks like the General Assembly is actually taking seriously the possibility that revenues from the gas tax may one day become inadequate to fund Virginia’s transportation needs. (It’s already inadequate, but it will become even more inadequate.) As Bacon’s Rebellion has warned repeatedly, as motorists shift to hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles and other more exotic automobiles over the next decade or so, revenues from the gasoline tax will decline precipitously.

    Well, a Joint Subcommittee Studying Fuel Efficient Vehicles and Transportation Funding, chaired by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, invited various transportation experts to testify and everyone concluded, yes, there is a problem. States an executive summary of the Subcommittee report:

    Based on current gas prices, current consumer demand, and Congressโ€™ recently-enacted CAFE standards, the current methods of transportation funding in the Commonwealth will not keep pace with new energy technologies being used for motor vehicles (e.g., hybrid vehicles; increased use of alternative fuel) and the Commonwealth will see a decrease in motor vehicle fuels tax revenues.

    Jonathan Gifford, a professor at George Mason Universityโ€™s School of Public Policy, laid out a number of policy alternatives, including: increasing the fuel tax, eliminating fuel tax exemptions, cutting transfer payments to transit, imposing more tolls (HOT lanes, road metering), and congestion pricing. Bacon’s Rebellion’s preferred option, a Vehicle Miles Driven tax, apparently was not considered (unless road metering amounts to the same thing).

    It’s progress of a sort. At least the General Assembly recognizes that it has a problem. It remains to be seen if it will actually do anything about it.

  • Fresh Details of U.S. 460 Bids

    Here are the details on the proposed upgrade of U.S. 460 between Suffolk and Petersburg, from the Executive Summary of the U. S. Route 460 Communications Committee. The project, to refresh your memory, would be a public-private partnership. Some of this information had been published in newspaper accounts, but not all.
    The justification for the investment of considerable state funds and imposition of a toll is the need (a) to accommodate growing truck traffic from the ports in Hampton Roads and (b) to provide an alternative hurricane evacuation route. Detailed proposals will be due in Spring of 2008 and negotiation and execution of an interim or comprehensive agreement will occur in Fall of 2008.

    Cintra 460
    Concession period: 50 years
    Est. Completion: Jan. 2014
    Est. DB price: $1,051 million (2006)
    Public funding: $174.5 million (base case)
    Other funding: TIFIA loan $450 million
    Toll rate: $0.07 to 0.24/mile
    Equity contribution: Cintra will “provide equity in substantial amounts”

    Itinere
    Concession period: 60 years
    Est. Completion: Dec. 2013
    Est. DB price: $1,550 million (2006)
    Public funding: state/federal – $1,056 million
    Other funding: Private activity bonds – $477 million, TIFIA – $144 million
    Toll rate: $0.14/mile
    Equity contribution: $98 million

    VCP
    Concession period: 50 years
    Est. Completion: June 2014
    Est. DB price: $1,535 million (2006)
    Public funding:
    Other funding: Private activity bonds – $1,849 million, TIFIA – $219 million
    Toll rate: $0.24/mile
    Equity contribution: $363 million for base case

    What I’m still waiting to see is a detailed cost-benefit analysis of this project, which would create a brand, spanking new divided highway in place of the existing four-lane road with peak speed limits of 55 mph and numerous stoplights. What are the projected traffic volumes? What will be the impact on human settlement patterns along the corridor? I’m also wondering what alternatives were considered for upgrading the existing four-lane road.

    (Photo cutline: U.S. 460 in Wakefield. Photo credit: Virginiahighways.com.)


  • Rail to Dulles: “Time to Think of Something Different”

    I haven’t had much nice to say about Del. David B. Albo, R-Springfield, for his obstinate stance on Abuser Fees, but he did make sense yesterday when talking about the Rail to Dulles project. On the floor of the House of Delegates, according to Amy Gardner with the Washington Post, he arose to say:

    “The proponents of this thing are basically violating the rule that says that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We’d better start thinking of something different, and we’d better start thinking of something fast.”

    I guess that means Gov. Timothy M. Kaine meets the definition of insanity. The governor still hopes to salvage the $5 billion heavy rail project as currently envisioned, relying upon the federal government for $900 million. He is heartened, he said, by the apparent willingness of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters to get to the bottom of apparent misunderstandings behind the feds’ decision to turn down the grant.

    At least Kaine did say one thing yesterday that made sense: Replacing the federal funds with even higher tolls on the Dulles Toll Road is a solution he’s not willing to support. … Good… Now, if only he’d look to the property owners who stand to reap billions of dollars in increased property valuations thanks to Metro service and higher density zoning around the stations.


  • It’s a Long Shot, But Redistricting Reform Is Worth Rooting For

    Winding its way through the state Senate is a bill (SB38), authored by Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath, that would turn the job of redistricting over to an independent, bipartisan commission. A bill that wins the support of Democrats Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and former Gov. Mark R. Warner as well as Republicans Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and former Gov. George Allen must have something to recommend it.

    The legislation, it is hoped, would reduce the practice of gerrymandering. Rather than create legislative districts to protect incumbents and handicap their rivals, an impartial redistricting process would create districts around geographic community of interest. That would mean more competitive districts and fewer safe seats for incumbents.

    To most citizens, that sounds like a good thing. Once upon a time long ago, as in the mid-1990s during the days of the Gingrich revolution, Republicans supported incumbent-dislodging ideas such as term limits. But to Republican members of Virginia’s House of Delegates, terrified of seeing their majority whittled down in the next redistricting, an impartial commission apparently sounds like a bad thing. Writes Tyler Whitley with the Times-Dispatch:

    “The vast majority of Virginians are much more concerned about the redistricting that determines where their children go to school,” said Jeff Ryer, who is an aide to House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem. It would produce less accountability, not more, because the commissioners would not be elected, according to Ryer.

    Now, that’s logical. Not. Voters care more how their school districts are drawn, therefore, we are to conclude what, exactly? That they don’t care at all about the shape of their legislative districts? That they’re just fine with gerrymanders that obliterate natural communities of interest? I don’t think so.

    This is the same Republican caucus, I might remind you, that squelched, in a party line vote, a bill to record sub-committee votes. That proposal was offered as an antidote to a practice in which a handful of delegates in sparsely attended meetings can anonymously kill bills they don’t like.

    Republicans favor transparency and accountability when it comes to government budgets and spending (rightly so), but they apparently don’t want to be held accountable themselves. They’re going against the grain of the electorate, including independents such as myself. They’re coming across as an aloof, unaccountable, self-perpetuating clique. That’s not a formula for retaining majority status. It’s also an attitude the Elephants may come to regret if the Donkey Clan regains power in the House and gerrymander them out of office.


  • Uranium Debate Generates Heat

    There’s a huge debate brewing over whether to study the feasibility of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. Sen. Frank W. Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, has submitted a bill to create a 15-member commission to assess the benefits and risks. A proposal just to study uranium mining, it seems, is highly controversial. There are many people in Pittsylvania County, the location of North America’s richest uranium deposit, who don’t even want to open up the possibility of reversing a 25-year moratorium on mining. (See the Times-Dispatch story on the latest developments in the General Assembly.)

    I don’t profess any expertise whatsoever on the environmental impact of uranium mining. Foes contend that uranium mining produces large tailings piles of water-soluble, radioactive waste. Not something you want leaching into the water table. On the other hand, there may well have been significant advances in engineering and technology that allow the uranium to be processed safely. How do we know unless we get someone to study the question?

    There’s a lot riding on this issue. Uranium mining in Virginia could lead to investment in uranium processing facilities as well. Combine that with the presence of nuclear service and design enterprises in Lynchburg (and Newport News as well, now that Northrup Grumman is getting into the business) as well as nuclear power generation by Dominion. The potential exists to build a world-class industry cluster based on nuclear power — creating a major high-tech growth industry for Southside/Central Virginia where no other obvious candidate exists.

    The prospect of creating a new industry cluster does not justify despoiling large swaths of Pittsylvania County for the next 10,000 or more years. But surely it is reason enough to take a second look. Surely the General Assembly can create a study commission with a balance of industry and environmental expertise that can go out and ascertain under what circumstances, and with what safeguards, and at what risk, uranium mining might be possible.