• Dudes, the General Assembly Won’t Make It Any Better the Second Time Around

    The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority approved yesterday an array of new regional taxes designed to raise some $175 million a year, but delayed implementation to give the General Assembly time to come up with a financing package that, in the words of James City County Board Chairman John J. McGlennon, “is spread more evenly among a broader section of the public.”

    “The mix of fees was not right and we hope to rationalize them,” McGlennon said at the Authority meeting in Chesapeake, reports Tom Holden with the Virginian-Pilot.

    Good luck. The General Assembly isn’t going to do any better a second time around. The one logical solution — devise a system in which the people who pay for transportation improvements are the same as those who use and/or benefit from them — is the one solution that politicians and citizen activists of all stripes seem to avoid at all costs. People want the road improvements, they just want someone else to pay for them. However, it is impossible for the General Assembly to tax people to the tune of $175 million a year without anyone noticing.

    The most promising development to come out of the HRTA meeting yesterday — and one totally overlooked by the accounts in the Virginian-Pilot, Daily-Press and Associated Press — is that the Authority may adopt a congestion-pricing strategy. Unfortunately, I have no details — know no more than what Reid Greenbaum reported in his comments in yesterday’s post, “Here, Take My Lint” — so I cannot elaborate at this time.

    But speaking in generalities, as long as the Authority is imposing new tolls to pay for projects, it might as well utilize supply-and-demand principles to ration scarce highway capacity. A willingness to consider congestion pricing represents a huge step forward in regional thinking.


  • ROI — Letters that Should be Tattooed on Every Politician’s Forehead

    Traffic congestion in the United States cost Americans roughly 3.5 billion hours a day of delay in 2000, and the number gets worse every year. The knee-jerk reaction of politicians in Virginia, as it is elsewhere in the country, is to build more roads. Fortunately for them, politicians are accountable only to voters and journalists, who are ignoramuses for the most part, and not to shareholders, bankers or money managers who might ask the tough question: What Return on Investment are you generating on your capital spending for road and highway improvements?

    In a 2006 paper, “The effect of government highway spending on road usersโ€™ congestion costs,” two Brookings Institution scholars, Clifford Winston and Ashley Langer, tried to answer that question. Here’s what they found: A dollar spent on highways in a given year generates only 11 cents in reduced congestion costs to motorists.

    The issues raised by the paper cannot be ignored. Governments have finite resources. They need to invest those resources where they generate the greatest social benefit. Failure to measure social Return on Investment means that billions of dollars are wasted on marginal programs while critical needs go unmet.

    Why is the ROI on highway spending so low? The authors proffer the following:

    Highway spending is compromised by inefficiencies related to pork barrel politics, by slow and inappropriate responses to demographic changes, by excessive maintenance expenditures caused by poor road design, and by inflated labor costs attributable to the Davis Bacon Act.

    But the most fundamental obstacle to effective highway spending is that the US intracity road system is largely complete and the nationโ€™s urbanized areas have little available land to expand their infrastructure. … In most congested cities, it is extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive to widen major freeways and arterials to reduce congestion or for such construction to keep up with traffic growth.

    It is important to remember that 11 percent is an average number, and the return on investment varies widely from project to project. Additionally, one can quarrel with aspects of the Winston/Langer methodology. But the larger implications of their study cannot be wished away: The social Return on Investment for highway spending (and transit spending, for that matter) varies widely from project to project, and many projects could never be justified if gauged on a Return on Investment basis.

    Lessons for Virginia: All projects should be ranked and funded according to a Return on Investment basis. Projects should provide a minimal rate of return — otherwise they represent no more than a wealth transfer from citizens to the special interest groups who make the case for them.

    (Hat tip: Quintin Kendall.)


  • Here, Take My Lint

    Emotions were flaring in Hampton Roads yesterday in advance of today’s meeting of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority, which is expected to approve an estimated $175 million in regional taxes to fund long lobbied-for transportation projects. It seems that some citizens are tired of getting taxed.

    During a three-hour hearing at the Virginia Beach Civic Center, reports the Daily Press, business interests defended the tax increases. Rob Goodwin, president of Virginia Beach Vision, a group of civic and business leaders, argued that traffic delays are raising the costs of doing business in the region, which increases the prices of all goods and services.”We need to be able to move in, out and about the community,” Goodwin said. “You’re paying for these delays one way or the other.”

    The Road Gang contended that traffic bottlenecks would hamper emergency evacuations of Hampton Roads in the event of hurricanes, make the ports less competitive, and routinely slow the response times of ambulances, fire trucks and police cars.

    But those arguments didn’t carry much weight with ordinary citizen George Donley: “I don’t have any more to give you. I’m at wit’s end. I’ve got lint left. I’ll give you that.”

    Suffolk resident Roger Leonard spoke a profound truth when urging the Authority to turn the plan back to the General Assembly. He asked business leaders if they would be so supportive if the package included a commercial real estate tax or a levy on shipping containers. “That’s not happening,” Leonard said, “because they have better lawyers and lobbyists than the rest of us.”

    Here’s the way I’m reading the situation: Hampton Roads politicians used citizen frustration with traffic congestion to mobilize support for creation of the HRTA and the increase in taxes. But the lawyers, lobbyists and their political buddies will have disproportionate influence over how those monies are spent. Go back and read our blog post, “Millions for Transportation, Pennies for Congestion Relief,” where we cited the arguments of Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Several of the mega-projects on the drawing boards are geared to economic development, he said, and will do as much to promote congestion as to relieve it.

    Here’s the Suffolk News Herald coverage. And the Virginian Pilot’s.

    Addendum: Here, from the Pilot, is the dog’s breakfast of “revenue enhancements” through which the citizenry will pay for improvements advocated by the business community:

    • $10 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee, raising it to $49.5 for cars. Would raise $13.3 million annually by 2009.
    • A new titling fee equal to 1 percent of a vehicleโ€™s value would be charged when the ownership changes. Would raise $41.2 million.
    • $10 increase in the annual vehicle safety inspection fee, raising it to $26. Would raise $12.3 million.
    • 5 percent tax on automotive repair labor bills. Would raise $18.9 million.
    • An increase in grantorโ€™s tax from 10 cents per $100 of a sold houseโ€™s value to 50 cents per $100. Would raise $49.1 million.
    • 2 percent sales tax on motor fuel. Would raise $30.2 million.
    • 2 percent tax on vehicle rentals. Would raise $3.5 million

    As Fredric Bastiat said, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”


  • My Open E-mail Letter to Del. Tom Rust (R-Herndon)

    Dear Tom:

    I was surprised to get your letter the other day, where you complain that there is a lot of misinformation about the traffic abusers fees. If there is an orchestrated misinformation campaign, it originates with members of our State Legislature who continue to make misleading and obfuscating statements about the many unconstitutional provisions in HB 3202.

    For example, in your letter you claim that the abuser fees are only applied against the worse of the worst–those drivers who habitually violate our traffic laws. Well, how about telling that to Mr. Charles Mason, who as reported by the Washington Post and repeated on the Raising Kaine blog is facing a $1,050 abuser fee for driving 20 miles over the speed limit?

    In all honesty Tom, can you, Dave Albo or Speaker Howell raise your right hand and take an oath in the presence of your constituents that you have never driven 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone? If you all can’t say that with a straight face, it’s time that you set a good example, by making a series of voluntary abuser-fee payments to the DMV for each time you drove over the speed limit.

    Let’s face it Tom, our State Supreme Court, in the guidance issued to the lower courts on how to implement the new abuser fees, lists in excess of 120 traffic infractions that qualify for an elevated abuser penalty. Contrary to all the assurances coming out of the General Assembly, it is now becoming clear that first time offenders–drivers with clean driving records–are being caught in the web that our overzealous legislators have cast against the citizens of our Commonwealth.

    Speaker Howell is also quoted saying that the Attorney General had cleared HB 3202. I have asked you for the AG’s legal opinion and Del. Bob Marshall has asked the same of the Speaker–but contrary to your assurances, we have yet to be provided with the AG’s opinion.

    Let’s face it, the AG did not issued a legally binding opinion on the constitutionality of HB 3202. So when members of the General Assembly try to hide behind a non-existing opinion, you’re simply adding to the misinformation regarding this bill.

    Furthermore, all members of the General Assembly are sworn to uphold our Constitution. So how can you all have voted in good conscience on a controversial bill that appears to have violated many provisions of the Constitution and which has already been found to violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, by two separate state courts?

    Sounds to me that everyone who voted for this bill has apparently violated their oath of office. What’s the penalty for a legislator who has knowingly violated his oath of office? At a minimum, I would think that any self-respecting elected official would choose to resign rather than subject our state through additional turmoil.

    So when you complain about all the misinformation surrounding the traffic abusers bill, don’t point fingers Tom–just look at your colleagues in the General Assembly who continue to go out of their way to mislead and misinform the public.

    Best Regards, Phil
    ________________________
    Phillip Rodokanakis
    President
    Virginia Club for Growth
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: www.virginiaclubforgrowth.org

    Powered by ScribeFire.


  • Now Everybody’s Got a Blog!

    Holy mackerel. I see from Not Larry Sabato that former Sen. George Allen now publishes a blog, paid for and authorized by the Good Government Action Fund PAC. He’s off to a good start, posting content daily. Recent posts detail his thoughts on energy independence and the resignation of Poquoson Mayor Gordon Helsel from the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. It will be interesting to see how long he keeps it up.

    (Friendly advice: Allen might be well advised to have a copy editor read behind him.)


  • Where’s the “Anti-Spending” Party?

    Virginia has no “anti-tax” political party. The “anti-tax” label routinely applied in the Mainstream Media to Republican factions in the General Assembly is patently ludicrous. A Republican legislature has presided over a 30 percent increase in state government expenditures adjusted for inflation and population growth over the past 10 years. (See “Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!”)

    What we have in Virginia are two political parties, or, in the case of the Republican party, two factions, that haggle over the rate of growth of government spending. The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are forthright about calling for tax increases while the so-called “anti-tax” faction of the Republican Party will do anything to avoid calling a tax by its name.

    Republicans suffer from crippling political disadvantages in this ongoing struggle. First is the clear preference of the Mainstream Media for Big Government. You can deduce all you need to know about the prejudices of the press from the fact that journalists and editorial writers routinely label certain legislative factions “anti-tax,” which is a laughable misnomer, but never label their pro-tax opponents as what they so very clearly are: “pro-tax.”

    The other disadvantage, self-inflicted, of what might more properly be called the “slower tax growth” crowd, is the lack of a set of coherent principles undergirding their positions. The “slower tax growth” faction is caught between a rock and a hard place: a perceived need to increase revenue while simultaneously placating a middle-class constituency that is sick and tired of its ever-escalating tax burden. The solution this spring was to raise $1 billion in new revenue for transportation while proclaiming none of it constituted a “statewide tax increase.”

    The authors of the the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007 instituted a half billion dollars of regional tax hikes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “statewide.” They imposed assorted statewide fees, such as the controversial Abuser Fees, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “taxes.” They borrowed money, which they would pay off with General Fund revenues, and they tapped General Fund surpluses instead of rebating it to taxpayers, but none of that counted either because no taxes were raised.

    The result is a revenue-raising scheme that is spread among so many different sources, and is so disconnected from how far people drive, when they drive, or the demands they place on the transportation system, that it arguably will do more harm than good.

    Here’s the ugly truth that the politicians of all parties and factions refuse to tell the voters: Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system. (That’s only the first step toward a genuine solution, but it’s a critical first step.) Virginia cannot build its way out of traffic congestion by subsidizing construction of new roads and transit programs through revenue streams disconnected from the use of those roads and transit facilities. When the cost is free, the quantity demanded is potentially limitless. That’s Economics 101. The only way to moderate demand is to make those who use the system pay for their use.

    The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. If that means, among other things, imposing a “gas tax” user fee in place of the opaque mix of taxes, fees, penalties, bonds and revenue surpluses that we have now, then so be it. But that’s something the Republicans, who once believed in market principles, have steadfastly refused to do. If the Republicans find themselves in trouble with the electorate this fall, it’s because opposing “statewide” increases in “taxes” while simultaneously abetting ever-growing spending is not a formula that most Virginians will buy into.


  • Fairfax Taxes: Feel the Pain

    I never cease to be amazed at the passivity shown by the million-plus citizens of Fairfax County in the face of higher taxes. But as onerous as the tax burden is now, it will, in all likelihood, get even worse.

    A couple of straws in the wind… First, this from the Times-Community newspapers:

    Fairfax County is anticipating an even tougher 2009 budget year than previously expected, after revised housing market analyses and fiscal forecasts show a potential shortfall of $120 million because of flat revenue growth. …

    Long said county planners anticipate a 4-percent drop in value for residential properties and, as better numbers are available, that figure may even worsen. …

    To make up the combined county and school deficits – which planners estimate to be around $250 million – an increase of 10 cents would be required on the real estate tax rate.

    “I can assure you, we ain’t gonna do that,” board chairman Gerry Connolly told the newspaper. So he says. But the pressure for a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes of lesser magnitude will be intense.

    Meanwhile, there’s this news from the Washington Post:

    The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is planning to vote next month on a proposal to raise the tax rate on retail, office and warehouse properties to pay for up to $110 million a year in transportation improvements.

    It looks like we have the makings of a perfect storm in commercial real estate. According to the Times-Community acrticle cited above, the commercial real estate sector is way overbuilt. Only 13 percent of the seven million square feet of new office space has been leased. In the Dulles corridor alone, 97 percent of office space under construction has no future occupant. Add to that, the slowdown in federal spending on defense, intelligence and homeland security means businesses won’t be expanding as fast as they have been since 9/11.

    A lot of people are feeling a lot of pain. A couple hundred million dollars in higher taxes will only make it only worse.


  • Time Out! The Abuser Fee Debate Is Still Missing the Point

    I must say, for all the skepticism I have expressed about Abuser Fees, I am astounded by the depth and breadth of hostility towards the bad-driving penalties that has surfaced this summer. State and local governments have been jacking up spending, taxes and fees for years, yet the electorate has laid there, supine and tranquilized. Stirring at last from their somnolent state, people have fixated on… what? Property taxes? Sales or income taxes? The swarming host of lesser levies? No, people are agitated about a set of fees that will punish a tiny fraction of the population — about 2.5 percent — consisting of the most reckless and incorrigibly dangerous drivers in the state.

    Now momentum is building to throw out Abuser Fees. Former Gov. Jim Gilmore and 11th District Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Fairfax County are the latest to denounce the penalties, according to Bob Gibson at the Daily Progress. Lost in the criticism is the idea that maybe we should incentivize the worst drivers — who cause the most accidents and, as a byproduct, the worst traffic congestion — to drive more carefully.

    Constitutional issues aside, there are two core problems with the Abuser Fees legislation as it now stands. First, the fees are structured to raise transportation revenues, not to curb bad driving. That’s why, for a convoluted chain of reasons, out-of-state drivers are exempt from the fee. Virginians are rightly irate. If we need to raise taxes for transportation, then we should do so in a way — raising gasoline taxes — that is transparent and captures revenue from out-of-state motorists. The gasoline tax has many problems, as I have written extensively. But at least it functions as a rough user fee, which makes it vastly preferable to the $1 billion grab-bag of taxes, levies, fees and penalties that lawmakers foisted into place this year.

    The other problem is that we have no idea if the higher fees will succeed in curtailing bad driving as they are purported to. No one has studied the issue carefully. Legislators did not solicit the input of traffic court prosecutors or judges. If the goal is to reduce the incidence of reckless driving, the ideal solution may not be blunt-edged, oppressive fines, which force many people into driving on suspended licenses, but a combination of penalties that include fines, remedial driving education, driving restrictions and other remedies.

    If we want to combat traffic congestion, it does make sense to target the reckless drivers who cause accidents and snarl traffic. But we should put into place a set of remedies that are designed specifically to accomplish that goal — not to raise revenue.


  • The Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution

    A group of conservative activists, represented by Richmond attorney Patrick McSweeney has filed a sweeping legal challenge to the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007. As the Virginian-Pilot’s Christina Nuckols sums up the initiative: “The lawsuit seeks to disable the legislation by riddling it with 13 separate state and federal constitutional objections.”

    “As far as I can tell, no one gave any thoughtful analysis to the constitutional questions as this bill went through the process,” McSweeney told the Virginian-Pilot. “There’s a lot of fault to go around.”

    In 13 counts, the lawsuit alleges that major provisions of the act, which raises nearly $1 billion a year in new transportation revenues, violate either the U.S. or Virginia constitutions. Among the claims, as reported by Examiner.com:

    -Regional transportation authorities in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads with the power to levy taxes breach the state Constitution because their members are not directly elected by voters;

    -“Impact fees” on people who develop their land in those regions constitute an unconstitutional governmental taking of property.

    -$3 billion in long-term borrowing for roads without statewide voter approval violates the state Constitution.

    -The civil remedial fees, already under court challenge, violate federal and state protections against double jeopardy, equal protection under the law and state constitutional safeguards against excessive fines.

    -The multifaceted law, directing numerous ways revenues are raised and spent statewide and regionally, violates the state Constitution’s “one-object” mandate that bills be confined to a single purpose.

    I’m no legal scholar, but I think there’s merit to four out of the five challenges listed above. The only one I would question is the objection to the impact fees — impact fees have passed constitutional muster elsewhere, what’s so different about these? Meanwhile, abuser fees have already encountered a major setback in Henrico County courts. It will be interesting to see how far these legal challenges go.

    Update: Attorney General Bob McDonnell, Gov. Tim Kaine, and House Speaker Bill Howell have filed a legal brief defending the constitionality of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.


  • Another Awesome Virginia Accomplishment

    Add another accolade to Virginia’s list of accomplishments: weaponizing the laser. It looks like the U.S. Navy is going to build a battlefield-strength laser based on technology developed at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News. As Noah Shachtman explains in the Danger Room blog:

    The Navy is interested in the FEL because most other lasers lose strength as they move through โ€” and get absorbed by โ€” the atmosphere. That’s especially in moist environments; around the sea, for instance. But the FEL can pick particular slices of the spectrum where the absorption won’t be nearly as bad.

    For decades, though, the problem was that no one could get the FEL the shine much stronger than a lightbulb. During the Star Wars era, the government sank ten years and a half a billion into a FEL. All it could only muster a meager 11 watts.

    That changed in recent years, when researchers at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility managed to assemble an FEL that hit 10,000 watts, or 10 kilowatts, in 2004. (The video, above, is of the Jefferson FEL in action.) The group got to 14 kilowatts two years later, and is now aiming for 20.

    The Navy will use the laser to knock out enemy rockets — conceivably enemy ICBM missiles.


  • Flogging a Dead Horse: College Tuitions Still Out of Control

    At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself… College tuitions are out of control. Attending a four-year public college or university in Virginia this year will set you back about $452 more in tuition and mandatory fees on average than last year, according to new figures released by the State Council on Higher Education in Virginia.

    The jump in tuition and mandatory fees is equivalent to an increase of 6.8 percent, reports Gary Robertson with the Times-Dispatch. That represented a moderation from the previous year’s 9.2 percent hike, but it still beats the 2.7-percent inflation rate by more than 4.0 percentage points.

    How much is enough? At what point will Virginia’s colleges and universities acknowledge that they’ve made up for financial hardships imposed upon them years ago by the General Assembly and start restraining their tuition increases? At what point will the dramatic productivity gains of the profit-driven private sector — yes, even in the labor-intensive services sector — be seen in the not-for-profit, academic sector? Universities are loaded to the gills with really smart people, right? Virginia has some of the best business schools in the country, right? Why can’t they figure out how to bolster productivity and restrain tuition charges?

    (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I know Virginia’s public colleges provide more educational bang for the buck than most of their peers. But the fact that higher education generally is totally out of control is not a sufficient excuse for Virginia instituations being only moderately out of control.)

    It strikes me as no mere coincidence that the most inflation-prone sectors of the “private” economy are those that are most affected by the heavy hand of government: education, health care and housing.


  • Rail-to-Dulles: On Life Support?

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and three Northern Virginia Congressmen met late last week with federal transportation officials “as part of a late-stage effort” to salvage the multibillion-dollar Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project, reports Examiner.com. The meeting follows a report by the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General that expressed grave reservations about the project.

    The only substantive comments about the meeting came from Rep. Jim Moran, D-8th, and they didn’t reveal much:

    The first phase of the planned 23-mile rail line now is โ€œprobably on a more solid track,โ€ [Moran] said after the hours-long discussion that dealt with the cost and timeline problems that have plagued the project, among other issues. โ€œAnd we think that some of the concerns that the Federal Transit Administration has may have been addressed,โ€ he said.


  • Who Will Gather the News? WaPo Profits Take Another Hit

    Profits at the Washington Post newspaper operation plunged in the 2nd quarter of 2007, led by a 13 percent decline in print advertising revenues, according to the Washington Post Company’s most recent quarterly report. Revenue declines were particularly brutal in classified ads and in all types of real estate advertising.

    Meanwhile circulation of the print newspaper continues to erode, losing another 2.9 percent over the past year. That’s all the more extraordinary when you consider that the Washington metro area is one of the fastest-growing big metros in the country.

    The only good news in the newspaper publishing division was the performance of the online operation: 2Q revenues increased 11 percent to $28.2 million. The fast-growing online business is generating in excess of $100 million a year in revenue now. Thanks to the strength of the online operation, newspaper publishing division revenues declined only seven percent overall.

    But online isn’t growing enough to salvage profits. In the 2Q of 2006, before taking into account a $46.8 million retirement plan buyout, the newspaper division generated $29.4 million in profits. This year, quarterly profits were only $17.8 million. (The year-to-date numbers, encompassing two quarters, aren’t looking any better.)

    At some point, plummeting revenues and profits will force the WaPo to engage in another round of editorial cost cutting.


  • Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!

    Virginia faces a $1.2 billion budgetary gap in the next two-year budget, warns a new report by The Commonwealth Institute, “The Other Side of the Coin,” and the reason is… no, not soaring government spending that has boosted state spending by 51 percent between FY 2003 and FY 2008… no, not anything done during the Warner or Kaine administrations… it’s the Gilmore-era car tax relief!

    States a press release summarizing the report:

    The current budget deficit is not due to out-of-control spending, but is instead due to inadequate revenue policies. State spending has increased only an average of 3 percent over the last 10 years, once inflation and population growth in the state are factored. In addition, Virginia continues to lag behind the rest of the country in several key spending areas, including education, health care and mental health, despite having one of the highest per capita income levels in the country.

    So, state spending has increased “only” three percent annually for 10 years — that means it’s “only” 30 percent bigger than it was during the Gilmore administration, adjusted for population growth and inflation.

    I do agree with one finding of the report: Lawmakers have undermined the tax base by handing out tax breaks like candy. The report specifically mentions the state tax repeal and conservation tax credits, which it estimates will cost $260 million a year, but the problem is much, much bigger. Gov. Mark R. Warner highlighted the problem back in 2003 (or thereabouts). The problem has only gotten worse since then. The corpus of the 2007 state tax code is riddled with more holes than Bonnie and Clyde.

    For the latest extravagances, you need go no farther than the Secretary of Finance’s home page, which touts, “Governor Kaine, General Assembly Pass New Tax Relief Legislation.” Aside from increasing the filing threshhold for the state income tax, 2007 measures include: (1) breaks for energy-efficient appliance purchases and the use of alternative fuels; (2) a sales-tax holiday for purchases of home generators in preparation for hurricane season; and (3) an exemption for expenses associated with organ donation.

    So, what’s the Commonwealth Institute’s solution? Close the tax loopholes? Rejuvenate the efficiency-in-government reforms of the Warner era? Set different budgetary priorities? Seek innovative solutions to public needs? Push for Fundamental Change in human settlement paterns? No, no, no, no, and no. What we need to do is increase general taxes. Of course, the Institute doesn’t say that explicitly. Here’s what it says: “Policymakers should embrace a long-term solution that stabilizes state revenues and restores a balanced budget.โ€ Got that? We need to “stabilize state revenues” — stabilize them at a higher plateau than they are now.

  • Don’t Panic!!

    The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007, which institutes the most momentous changes to Virginia land use law in a generation, is slowly grinding its way through the system. Currently, local government officials are trying to figure out what it all means.

    Bob Burke attended a recent daylong summit, co-sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and other organizations, dedicated to sorting through the dteails and answering questions. His observation: No one seems terribly enthralled with the legislation, which will preoccupy local officials for years to come. But no one is predicting death, doom and destruction either. For the most part, people are still trying to get answers.

    One preoccupation: impact fees. When can you impose them, how do you calculate them, and what can you spend the money on?

    Another question: What role are “New Urbanism” design principles supposed to play in newly created Urban Development Areas? The legislation is exceedingly vague.

    Burke has the story here: “Don’t Panic.”