Bacon's Rebellion

  • How Biased Numbers Could Kill Mass Transit in Richmond

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    It’s not often that you see someone seriously arguing for mass transit in the Richmond area, but Ford Weber, director of the Virginia Local Initiatives Support Corporation, makes the case on the Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed page today.

    The Richmond metropolitan planning organization is conducting a major study evaluating the region’s mass transit needs over the next 25 years. Trouble is, writes Weber, that study is basing its conclusions on Virginia Employment Commission’s projections of future population and employment growth. “The VEC projections … call for unending suburban sprawl over the next 25 years.”

    The VEC numbers do not take into account significant shifts in development patterns, especially the increasing popularity of New Urbanism projects in the region, rising fuel prices or demographic changes. “Nor,” Weber writes, “do the VEC’s projections reflect mass transit’s ability to proactively shape growth by channeling high-density development into targeted transit corridors.”

    Ironically, it appears that the decision to use VEC numbers will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that scattered, disconnected low-density development makes mass transit uneconomical will bias the study to conclude that the region cannot afford the mass transit option. Such a conclusion will undermine political support for funding mass transit. The lack of a politically viable mass transit option will relieve municipalities from the necessity of planning for nodes of denser development capable of supporting light rail and buses. Thus, sprawl will continue and the VEC will be proved right.

    What a mess. As readers of this blog know, I don’t believe in dumping money blindly into mass transit projects. Indeed, I think that mass transit should be required to pay its own way, just as roads should. In “Midlothian Leviathan,” I’ve shown conceptually how this can be done by redeveloping land around the train stations and capturing some of the increased property value to pay for the up-front capital costs.

    Still, it would be a shame to kill off the mass transit option simply through unintentional biases in the selection of data used in the study. Ruling out a major transportation alternative on the basis of a flawed methodology would be a grievous mistake.

  • Frank Hall’s Brush with Insight

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Del. Franklin P. Hall, R-Richmond, takes to the pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch today to explain why he wants to create a Richmond regional transportation authority. He comes dangerously close to making some insightful observations — then backs off to embrace the wisdom of Business As Usual.

    Writes Hall:

    All you need do is get in your car and drive; and whether you head north, south, east or west, you will enounter signs of growth. … From 1990 to 2000 our region grew by 17 percent — 122,708 people; and we’re projected to see another 164,000 join our ranks by 2010. If these population trends continue, the region will need to add more than 125,000 new housing units by the year 2030.
    …

    Because of land-use patterns that have historically separated residences, retail, and jobs, our region has the highest driving rate of any major metro area in the state. … Given our current driving patterns and our projected population growth, it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that while we do not have the traffic gridlock that plagues Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, it can happen here in Central Virginia — and far sooner than we think.

    At some level, Hall understands the connection between human settlement patterns and transportation demand. But he ignores the implications of his own logic. His bill to establish a regional transportation authority would do nothing to alter human settlement patterns. Indeed, it would enable local boards of supervisors to perpetuate the status quo while fobbing off the transportation consequences to someone else.

    The Richmond region is careening down a dead end road — without any brakes. Frank Hall’s plan would just jam down the accelerator so we reach our collision with reality even faster.

  • Payday Lenders or Goondas — You Decide

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    If you thought Virginia’s payday lenders were bad, things could be a lot worse! India, with its growing economy, is experiencing a bank-led consumer lending boom. As in the United States, some borrowers fall behind in their repayments. Even in India, it appears, some people get caught on a treadmill of indebtedness. But in India, banks have a quaint way of collecting their debts: They beat people.

    Today’s Wall Street Journal describes the fate that befell Vinod Kumar, a 21-year-old college student who was sitting in a friend’s car listening to the radio. A stranger suddenly pulled him out of the car, beat him with an iron bar and left him with 12 stitches and a 10-day hospital stay. Writes the Journal: “Mr. Kumar’s attacker was a goonda — a thug — working on behalf of one of India’s largest banks.”

    India’s lawmakers may well put the goondas out of business. Here in Virginia, we may well give them a new lease on life. If we abolish payday lending in Virginia, where will poor people raise emergency cash? From Rocko and Guido (or their ethnic counterparts here in the Old Dominion) who operate outside the rule of law. Don’t be surprised if Virginia emergency rooms see a sudden rise in patients with broken kneecaps.

    (Photo cutline: Poster art from the Hindi movie, “Goonda.” Photo credit: Vendithera Pay Per View.)

  • And the Best Deal in Education Is…. Poquoson!

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Poquoson taxpayers rejoice. And taxpayers in Lexington, York County, Henrico County and Scott County, you can go ahead and rejoice, too.

    In its new study, “No Guarantees: Rating the Cost Efficiency of Virginia’s School Districts,” the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute (CPLPI) rates Virginia school districts by how much educational bang they deliver for the buck. Those five municipalities topped the list as “high achievement” school districts providing education at the lowest cost.

    The worst deals in education — the lowest achieving school districts at the highest cost — include the cities of Petersburg, Charlottesville, Roanoke and Martinsville, as well as a number of less populous counties in Southside and Southwest Virginia.

    Compare school districts of similar wealth and percentage of disadvantaged students, CPLPI argues, and you still get widely varying results. Take, for example, Poquoson (in Hampton Roads) and Falls Church (in Northern Virginia), which are of similar size, have similar student enrollments and similar percentages of economically disadvantaged student populations (7.6 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively). Both districts produce high achievement: Poquoson and Falls Church rank second and third, respectively, in Goal-Attainment Average in the state. However:

    The two cities were not comparable in terms of Cost-Benefit Value. … Poquoson’s CBV of $77.68 is the best in the state, while Falls Church [after adjusting for higher teacher salaries in Northern Virginia] had a CBV of $136.28, the fifteenth worst in the state.

    Falls Church is an affluent area boasting per capita personal income significantly higher than Poquoson, which is just shy of the state average. Yet Poquoson residents were served more cost-efficiently than their wealthier neighbors to the north, who “paid” an adjusted unit price 75 percent higher for similar student achievement results.

    Bacon’s bottom line: The public education lobby has successfully defined the “solution” to improving the educational outcomes of Virginia’s youth as giving more money to public schools. I call it the “mo’ money” syndrome. The educrats have obfuscated the differences in managerial performance by blaming disparite outcomes on the differing socio-economic characteristics of school district populations. But the CBLPI study shows that some school systems do a better job than others.

    Before dumping billions of dollars more into Virginia’s school districts — usually on the pretext that the worst-performing districts desperately need help — taxpayers should demand more accountability from school boards and administrations. Taxpayers cannot afford to continue writing blank checks. And students, who are preparing to enter a globally competitive economy, cannot afford a sub-par education.
    (Photo cutline: Graduation ceremony at Poquoson High School. Photo credit: HRtownsquare.com.)

  • How Efficiently Do Virginia School Districts Use Their Money? Answers at Last.

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In 2005, Virginians paid public schools $10.8 billion in state and local taxes to educate 1.78 million students, for an average per-pupil-cost of $9,202. What did we get for our money? As the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) asks:

    Are school districts putting tax dollars to the best and highest use? Do Virginians get a good return in student achievement from school districts on the tax dollars invested? Do all school districts operate with equal cost-efficiency, or do some districts produce desired educational achievement results at a better “price” to taxpayers than others?

    Concludes the Institute in its newly released study, “No Guarantees: Rating the Cost Efficiency of Virginia’s School Districts“:
    • The “price” Virginians paid for a single average percentage point of English and mathematics achievement varied widely among school districts, from Poquoson City School District’s exceptionally cost-efficient $77.68 to Sussex County School District’s exceptionally cost-inefficient $204.32.

    • Fifty-five school districts (fewer than half) used public funds efficiently, producing good educational achievement results at a low to moderate taxpayer cost.

    • Neither wealth nor percentage of economically disadvantaged students was a predictor of a school district’s efficiency.

    • Overall results suggest that biennial across-the-board “rebenchmarked” increases in state funding (a) exacerbate cost-inefficiency and (b) obscure inefficient districts’ more critical need for state professional and technical support to raise educational achievement.

    Notes on methodology: CBLPI adapted a methodology developed by Yankee Institute for Public Policy Studies in Connecticut. Using 2005 numbers, it calculated a district’s “Goal Attainment Average,” the number of students who passed their English Standards of Learninge exams plus the percentage who passed their math SOLs. Then it calculated a “Cost Benefit Value” by dividing the district’s per pupil spending by its Goal Attainment Average. Finally, CBLPI adjusted for the significant wage differential between Northern Virginia school districts and RoVa school districts.

    (Photo cutline: The James Monroe Building, headquarters of the Virginia Department of Education. Photo credit: Picasaweb.)

  • Giving School Boards Taxing Power

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    It’s something Del. Tom Rust wants JLARC to take a look at:

    Directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study implications of granting fiscal autonomy to elected school boards in the Commonwealth. In conducting its study, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission shall (i) examine state constitutional and statutory issues regarding school board supervisory authority, (ii) study the respective roles of local school boards and the relevant local governing body in delivering and funding public education, (iii) examine fiscal authority models in other states, and (iv) consider such other issues as it deems appropriate.

    The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission must submit an executive summary of its findings and recommendations to the 2009 Session and its final findings and recommendations to the 2010 Session of the General Assembly.

    Considering the black hole that is education spending, I’m not sold on the idea of giving local school boards the power to set their own tax rates (can you imagine the great minds on the Richmond School Board attempting to do that?).

    However, having attended a school district that could set its own tax rate (subject to voter approval), I can also see, and have benefited from, such a scheme.

  • Whipple Whips up a Controversy

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, has submitted a bill that would allow local governments to give homeowners a rebate as big as 20 percent on their real estate tax bills — potentially shifting municipal tax burdens to owners of commercial real estate. The Washington Post has the story here.

    The idea should prove popular to homeowners reeling from a decade of double-digit increases in real estate assessments. During the extended residential real estate boom of the 2000s, residential assessments increased much faster than commercial, which had the effect of sticking homeowners with a bigger share of the tax burden.

    Current state law requires municipalities to set the same tax rate for residential and commercial property.

    Bacon’s bottom line: I wish I had a bottom line. I’d like to dig a little deeper on this issue. On the one hand, homeowners desperately need relief from soaring property taxes. On the other, the General Assembly probably had good reasons for requiring all forms of property to be taxed at the same rate.

    Here’s one thing I fear if the Whipple law gets passed and localities pass the homestead exemption: More dependent than ever upon business tax revenues, municipalities will compete even more fiercely for commercial and industrial investment. That competition will intensify the “beggar thy neighbor” practice in which municipalities seek to maximize their tax prospects at the expense of their neighbors, grabbing the tax revenue and foisting the costs (roads, schools, etc.) onto their neighbors — accentuating the scatteration of development and undermining regional cooperation in land use and transportation.

    Meanwhile, we can expect every business lobby in the state to lobby against the homestead exemption. Politicians will be caught between the voters and their financial backers. I will enjoy watching this drama unfold.

  • Strife in the Coalfields

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Dominion wants to build a state-of-the-art “clean coal” power plant in Wise County to meet the growing demand for electricity in Virginia. Not surprisingly, opposition has surfaced. I described the proposed power plant back in July as an inter-regional transfer of wealth. That criticism didn’t gain much traction, but opposition to the project on environmental grounds has.

    In “Strife in the Coalfields,” Peter Galuszka delves into the environmental pros and cons of the $1.6 billion facility, which would generate enough electricity to power 146,000 homes — mostly in the eastern part of the state.

    While Dominion proposes loading up the power plant with virtually every new clean-coal technology known to man — which prompted my questions of whether the plant could possibly be a cost-effective means of generating power — it’s still not clean enough for the greenies. As Galuszka summarizes their fears, the plant “would generate huge volumes of greenhouses gases, inflict pollution that causes potentially fatal respiratory disease, employ heavy coal trucks that will crumble highways, and encourage mountaintop removal, a method of surface mining on a vast scale that Virginia has so far largely escaped.”

    As readers of this blog know, I’m no apologist for Dominion. However, it strikes me that several of the environmental criticisms of this project are potentially without merit. Let’s take them one by one.

    (1) Mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is indeed a highly destructive mining method that literally scrapes off entire mountaintops to reach coal seams. But Dominion hasn’t sourced its coal yet. If the power plant is approved, the power company likely will sign long-term contracts with one or two suppliers for the bulk of its coal. Presumably, the SCC could require, as a condition of approval, that none of the coal originate from operations using the mountaintop removal mining method.

    (2) Coal trucks. Heavy-loaded coal trucks do pound local roads, creating a massive maintenance headache. But coal trucks also pay a significant tax per ton to help pay for the maintenance. If that fee is insufficient, the solution isn’t rejecting the power plant but increasing the tonnage fee.

    (3) Respiratory disease. Critics cite American Electric Power Co.’s nearby Carbo power plant as an example of the impact the Dominion facility would have on local air quality. But Carbo is 50 years old; Dominion would use much more advanced cleaning technology. I don’t profess to know whether the Dominion facility would worsen local air quality or not, but I’m quite certain the impact will be minimal compared to AEP’s Carbo facility. If clean-air standards are not met, Dominion will not obtain — nor should it deserve — a permit from the State Air Pollution Control Board.

    (4) Conservation and renewable energy. Instead of building a coal-fired power plant that emits C02 and contributes to global warming, environmentalists argue, Dominion should invest in conservation and renewable energy. I can’t think of any blog or print publication in Virginia that has espoused the virtues of conservation and renewable as aggressively as Bacon’s Rebellion. But I’m realistic enough to know that conservation/renewable can’t meet all of Virginia’s energy needs at an acceptable cost over the next decade or two. The conservation/renewable technologies and business models simply aren’t mature enough. We have no choice but to supplement conservation and renewables with some old-fashioned electric power capacity.

    Meanwhile, opponents overlook a major environmental positive. The Dominion plant would use a technology that could burn waste coal found in the “gob piles” that litter the coalfield counties. These piles of coal dust and pulverized rock, which is refuse of mining that often took place decades ago, leach acidic water into local creeks and rivers. By recycling gob piles, the new plant would help address one of the region’s worst environmental problems.

    Here’s my beef with the environmentalists. They don’t like coal. They oppose uranium mining in Southside. They want to block natural gas production off the Virginia coast. But what happens when entrepreneurs tried to build a wind farm in Highland County — a truly “green” energy source? Environmentalists tried to thwart it on the grounds that it would kill too many birds and bats! Some environmentalists seem to be against everything. (I recognize that the “environmental” movement is highly diverse, and that not all environmentalists oppose all new energy sources. My criticism applies to the extremists who have nothing constructive to offer.)

    I’m not yet persuaded that Dominion’s Wise County power plant is good for Virginia. By the time all legitimate environmental issues are addressed, it may be so darned expensive that it can’t be justified. But I’m not terribly impressed with the environmentalists’ case against the plant to date.

    (Photo credit of Carbo power plant: Camille Galuszka.)

  • Albo Expands Traffic Law Business

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    It seems that the law firm of Del. David B. Albo, R-Springfield, is expanding.

    Albo is famous (or infamous) as the author of the notorious Abuser Fee legislation that has jacked up fines for traffic offenses. While several Republican legislators have vowed to scrap the fees (see my previous post on the subject), Albo wants to reform them.

    Tom Stachowitz on Nowhere-Fast.net has picked up on the fact that Albo’s law firm, Albo and Oblon, is advertising in Virginia Lawyers Weekly for “3-4 entrepreneurially-minded attorneys to help us open new offices in Tidewater, the Roanoke Valley, Fredericksburg, and the Shenandoah Valley.”

    Wow, what an intriguing business model!

    Step One: Get elected to the General Assembly.

    Step Two: Create a demand for the type of legal service you just happen to provide.

    Step Three: Expand your business and make a bundle!

    Albo is not the first legislator to figure out how it works. Plenty of other lawyer-legislators in Virginia have made a living by working the system and racking up legal fees. But most were (or are) clever enough to pass laws too obscure for anyone to notice, and they operate outside the public eye in musty corners of state government. Albo passes a law that generates a firestorm of publicity, conducts his business right out in the open and then aggressively expands that business.

    Legally, I doubt there’s a conflict of interest. But in a previous era, when the concepts of honor and integrity regulated Virginians’ behavior, such self-serving behavior would not have been sanctioned.

  • More on Landmark’s Plans

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The biggest interest in the possible sale of Landmark’s media assets centers on the Weather Channel and its companion website, weather.com. That’s not surprising. In today’s Wall Street Journal, there’s some guesswork from SNL Kaine’s Derek Baine on how to value those two properties, and the result is rather amazing:

    …the Web business may be valued at $3.5 billion while the television operation could be worth $1.5 billion. He notes that the channel, while generating lots of cash, is no longer a growth business.

    A website that’s worth more than a cable channel. Now that’s a sure sign of how the media landscape has changed. So where does that leave Landmark’s newspapers?

    Potential buyers for the newspapers could include Gannett Co., MediaNews Group Inc. or Media General Inc., said John Morton, president of Morton Research Inc., a media consulting firm in Silver Spring, Md.

    Low valuations for newspapers may broaden the pool of potential buyers “but make it that much more painful for Landmark to part with them,” Mr. Morton said.

    Representatives for Gannett and MediaNews Group declined to comment. Media General didn’t return calls for comment.

    Print isn’t dead. But newspapers can’t command a premium in the marketplace (unless you’re Rupert Murdoch, or the Journal). The question then becomes whether Landmark will be willing to unload its papers at any price, or hold them in hopes of grinding out whatever profits it can.

  • Arlington, Immigrants and Granny Flats

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Walter Tejada, the new chairman of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors, is promoting a worthwhile idea — allowing homeowners to build small “accessory dwelling units” on their properties. Unfortunately, he’s diluting the proposal with a highly controversial agenda, and he appears to be basing his justification for the accessory dwelling units on a fuzzy call for social justice instead of individual liberties.

    As Kirstin Downey writes for the Washington Post, Tejada wants to eliminate smoking in public places and ban trans-fats from restaurant foods. A native of El Salvador, he also is an outspoken advocate of Arlington’s Hispanic residents. Responding to the plight of immigrants who were displaced when garden-style apartments were torn down to make way for upscale condominiums, Tejada wants to require landlords to make tenant-relocation payments. The plight of displaced tenants is all too real, but the proposed remedy is a form of social engineering that undoubtedly would have unintended consequences if enacted — the topic for another blog post some day.

    To replace some of the torn-down units, Tejada also proposes that the county permit homeowners to add accessory dwelling units, such as in-law apartments or English basements, in residential neighborhoods. Arlington County considered the idea some two decades ago but dropped it in the face of heated opposition — presumably from homeowners worried about the impact on their neighborhoods.

    Accessory units like granny flats and garage apartments are wonderful things. They provide a wider range of housing options for lower-income individuals, they allow for a diversity of ages and income groups in a neighborhood, and they create an income-producing opportunity for homeowners. If neighbors are concerned that a basement apartment might become home to a dozen immigrant day laborers sleeping in shifts on mattresses, the appropriate solution isn’t to ban basement apartments but to limit the number of people who can live in them.

    Unfortunately, if the quotes in the WaPo article are any guide, Tejada bases his case on justice for immigrants — as opposed to basing it on the principles of property rights and individual freedoms. Once an issue becomes one of group rights as opposed to individual rights, it becomes a zero-sum game, thus needlessly polarizing and divisive. Big mistake. In all likelihood, the best idea in Tejada’s nanny-state agenda will get shot down.
    (Photo credit: Secondjourney.org.)

  • An Abuser Fee by any Other Name Is Still an Abuser Fee

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    It’s only Jan. 4, and already Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax, has established himself as the front runner in the 2008 “newspeak” awards. Crafting new legislation to resurrect the much-abused Abuser Fee law he wrote last year, he’s changing his terminology. Instead of calling abuser fees “abuser fees,” he’s calling them “liquidated damage fees.” Hugh Lessig with the Daily Press explains:

    [The bill] relies on the legal premise of implied consent — that Virginia’s highways are maintained by taxpayers and made available to the public under an implied contract that they be used responsibly. If anyone breaks the contract, regardless of home state, damages are owed.

    Albo contends that his proposal will affect out-of-state drivers, who are exempted under the original law, because their home state can suspend their license once Virginia notifies them of the violation.

    If true, that would eliminate the law’s most unpopular feature. But Albo may have tough sledding even so. Among other straws in the wind, Bill Bolling has called for the outright appeal of abuser fees. Meanwhile, the Lt. Governor wrote in a press release issued yesterday, Del. Lacey Putney, I-Bedford, Del. Mark Cole, R-Fauquier, and Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, have agreed to introduce legislation calling for repeal of the abusive driver fees. And other legislators, he predicted, will likely get into the act.

    Explained Bolling:

    Recent information provided by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission indicates that the abusive driver fees are not generating anywhere near the $60M a year we had been told they would generate. In fact, the fees only resulted in total collections of $2.8M through November 30th of 2007.

    While it may be possible to address some of the concerns that have been raised, such as those discussed above, through revisions to the 2007 legislation, I believe that would be a mistake. While this was the most noble of efforts, it simply has not worked out the way it was intended.

  • Kaine Proposes Protections Against Identity Theft

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has proposed two new consumer-protection measures. One would require businesses and state agencies to inform consumers when their personal identification information has been improperly acquired, accessed or released to the public. The other would give Virginians the ability to freeze their credit reports until any identity theft or fraud issues are resolved. (See the Governor’s press release.)

    Bacon’s bottom line: These seem like reasonable proposals to me. The burden of notifying consumers of security breaches is a trivial regulatory burden — especially in comparison to the havoc that the loss of personal identity data could inflict upon a victim’s personal finances. Prompt disclosure and prompt action can limit the damage.

    To my way of thinking, these proposals do not constitute an expansion of the “nanny state.” Government has two legitimate roles in the realm of consumer protection: prevention and prosecution of fraud, and promotion of information transparency that help citizens make better informed consumer decisions. These measures would safeguard against an increasingly virulent type of fraud.

  • Landmark Sale?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Landmark Communications, which owns papers like the Virginian-Pilot, Roanoke Times and Style Weekly, could be up for sale:

    The Web sites said the Batten family has hired advisers to sell its Norfolk-based Landmark Communications Inc.

    An announcement about the decision is scheduled to be made today. The company could be sold in pieces, the sites said.

    The privately-held media company also owns The Weather Channel, plus television stations in Nashville, Tenn., and Las Vegas

  • Son of HB 3202: Making a Bad Problem Even Worse

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Top headline from today’s Wall Street Journal: “Oil Hits $100, Jolting Markets.” Writes the Journal:

    The surging price of oil, from just over $10 a barrel a decade ago to $100 yesterday, is altering the wealth and influence of nations and industries around the world. … Steep gasoline prices … threaten America’s long love affair with the automobile, while putting strains on many lower-income people outside big cities, who must spend an increasing share of their budgets just on fuel to get to work.

    Top headline from today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Area Transportation Authority Sought.” Del. Franklin P. Hall, D-Richmond, plans to introduce legislation to create a regional transportation authority, similar to authorities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, that would raise $105 million annually for regional transportation projects. The money would come from an add-on 2 percent gas tax as well as increased fees for car registrations, inspections and repairs.

    Hall wants to issue bonds and build the roads to “deal with the transportation issue in central Virginia before it becomes a crisis,” writes reporter Will Jones. Apparently, Hall has the backing of some regional business leaders. Jim Dunn, president of the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce, says businessmen should give Hall’s proposal “some thought,” citing extensive needs, such as widening Interstate 64 east of Richmond, extending the Powhite Parkway, and improving Hull Street Road — all of which would encourage people to settle on the metropolitan periphery and drive greater distances. Oh, and Dunn says we need to promote regional transit, too.

    Bacon’s Bottom Line: Thus, while oil hits $100 per barrel and the nation’s leading business publication calls into question the viability of America’s auto-centric economy, Richmond political and business leaders propose to double down their bets on an auto-centric transportation system adapted to $10-per-barrel oil. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of addressing the dysfunctional human settlement patterns at the root of Richmond’s surging transportation needs.

    As Trip Pollard with the Southern Environmental Law Center pointed out in his recent study on land use, transportation and climate change in Virginia, “New Directions,” the Richmond region is developing land at a more prodigious rate — converting 58,000 acres of land between 1992 and 1997, compared to 49,300 acres in the far more populous Northern Virginia region and 43,300 acres in Hampton Roads. (Admittedly, those numbers are a decade old, but there is little to indicate that the pattern has changed.)

    Scattered, disconnected, low-density development is the root cause of transportation dysfunction. Not only would Hall do absolutely nothing to reverse this “suburban sprawl,” he would, in fact, subsidize it. Instead of advocating a “user pays” system, in which those who drive more pay more, Hall would finance the scheme largely through a sales tax. Thus, those who walk to work, bicycle to work, telecommute, carpool, ride the bus or simply live a short drive from work, would subsidize those who choose to live ever increasing distances from employment centers and put increasing strain on the transportation system.

    Then there’s the issue of the transportation authority itself — an unelected and largely unaccountable body empowered to increase taxes. Hall seems blandly unconcerned by the objections raised by citizens in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, much less by the legal challenges to the constitutionality of the authorities. Says Hall, “We have been assured by the attorney general … that it meets the test and those statutes are valid.”

    More money for sprawl-inducing mega-projects as oil tops $100 per barrel. Wow, that’s a real formula for regional success. NOT! This abomination — the Son of HB 3202 — must be strangled in its cradle before it locks into place a dysfunctional transportation system that does immeasurable harm to the future prosperity, liveability and sustainability of the Richmond region

Now Available

Book cover of 'Dust Mites: A Second American Revolution' by James A. Bacon, featuring astronauts planting a flag with a blue and white emblem on a lunar landscape, with Earth visible in the background.
For sale on Amazon.com

The year: 2075. The American colonies on the Moon are getting restless under Washington’s tyrannical rule….

This second edition of “Dust Mites” has a snazzy new cover, includes helpful lunar maps, and is 5,000 words tighter than the original. The sequel, “Trogs,” is scheduled for publication this summer.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

About

Bacon’s Rebellion is Virginia’s leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.

Fund the Rebellion

Shake up the status quo! Your contributions will be used to pay for faster download speeds and grow readership. Make a one-time donation by credit card or contribute a small sum monthly.

Can’t wait until tomorrow

For your Bacon’s Rebellion fix?

Enter your email address to receive immediate notifications of new posts by email.

SUBSCRIBE

Search Bacon’s Rebellion

Categories

Archives

The Jefferson Council

Protecting Thomas Jefferson’s Legacy at the University of Virginia

Forgot Your Password?

Shoot me an email and I’ll generate a new password for you.

Latest