Bacon's Rebellion

  • Another Self-Destructive Homeowners Association

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Determined to enforce its covenants, the Lansdowne Potomac Club Homeowners Association has cracked down on some 40 homeowners who operate small businesses out of their homes. The Loudoun Times-Mirror highlights the plight of a day care run by Oksana Downs, who caters to Russian-speaking children.

    The Association is probably within its legal rights to order homeowners to close their businesses. But association board members should at least be honest with themselves: They’re part of the broader problem, not the solution. Small home-based businesses should be encouraged, not discouraged, as long as they do not prove disruptive to the neighbors.

    The business owners have three alternatives: shut down, move to a neighborhood with a friendlier home owner’s association, or move the business to a location zoned for commercial activity. None are desirable. The notion that business and residential activities must be rigidly separated is an underlying cause of dysfunction in contemporary human settlement patterns. People working at home… people dropping off kids at the neighborhood day care… people seeking services from tax preparation to lawnmower repair from someone working out of their home… translates into people not overloading collector and arterial roads as they rush between scattered destinations to procure those services.

    Furthermore, a community where residents interact as vendor and customer enjoys a richer network of personal interaction — something that is sorely lacking in the neighborhoods of strangers that dominate American suburbia. Permitting limited business interactions helps build trust and community. Homeowners associations should foster those attributes, not squelch them.

    The Lansdowne Potomac Club Homeowners Association should consider revising its covenant. Far from hurting property values, the convenience of accessing unobtrusive services locally, and the feeling of community that the business interactions engender, will make the neighborhood, and the homes within it, more desirable and more valuable.

  • Nukes, Nukes, the Magical Fuel

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    I’ve been critical of Dominion’s “big grid” strategy of building monster power plants in outlying areas and linking them to customers with monster transmission lines. But I’m realistic enough to know that Dominion, like Virginia’s other power companies, will have to add more capacity eventually — no matter how much we conserve, and no matter how rapidly we bring renewable energy sources online. And when Dominion does bring on new capacity, I’m perfectly happy, like the Daily Press, to see it to run on nuclear energy.

    Dominion has established an excellent track record for safety and efficiency of its nuclear units. If we can solve the problem of disposing of the spent nuclear fuel rods — surely the United States is big enough and has enough empty places that can take them — nukes are cleaner than fossil fuels. And, if man-made global climate change charges your batteries, nukes don’t emit greenhouse gases.

    Indeed, I would go the next step forward. Virginia ought to encourage the use of electric vehicles — all running on clean, nuclear-powered fuel. I may have issues with Dominion, but I’d far rather rely on a home-grown electric utility for my fuel source than fossil fuels (whether oil or natural gas) imported from Venezuela, Nigeria or the Middle East, where our money props up dictators and underwrites terrorism.

  • Money Down the Drain? I Don’t Think So.

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Bart Hinkle at the Times-Dispatch has taken after Mayor L. Douglas Wilder for the second time in a week for proposing to levy a fee upon property owners to pay for much-needed storm water projects. While Hinkle concedes the need for improvements — citing the devastating flooding in the Battery Park and Shockoe Bottom areas — he questions the need to “sock homeowners with an annual fee of $89, and levy considerably higher fees upon businesses, nonprofit groups and even churches.”

    Normally, I find Hinkle’s logic impeccable. This time, I fear, he has stumbled. He cites evidence, for instance, of widespread waste in city government. A city auditor found $19 million just by looking at a part of school system operations. He also takes issue with the city’s absurd rate structure for water and wastewater. The basic rate is $43.56 per month, more than twice that of neighboring Henrico County. But volume users get a price break. “The more water and water-disposal service you use, the less you pay per volume unit,” he chastises. “Not only does this not encourage conseration — it actively encourages consumption.”

    Wasteful and counter-productive? You bet! Relevant to storm-water improvements? No, not really. No. Two wrongs (or three, or four, or even more — we’re talking City of Richmond here) don’t make a right.

    Of course, Richmond needs to tighten up operations and cut administrative overhead. And when it does so, it should rebate the savings to taxpayers in the form of lower property taxes. Absolutely, Richmond needs to implement a water/sewer rate structure that encourages customers to conserve water rather than reward them for wasting it.

    Following the same line of logic, Richmond needs to pay for storm water improvements in a way, to quote my previous post on this topic, establishes “a logical nexus between who pays, how much they pay and what they’re paying for.” And that’s what Wilder’s proposal would do. In contrast to city water/sewer rates, Wilder would charge property owners according to the amount of rooftop and pavement on their land, and it would reduce the charges based on the implementation of measures that reduce the run-off or improve its quality.

    Is there a way of achieving that aim more efficiently than Wilder has proposed? Perhaps. I’m open to suggestions. Hinkle recommends taxing tarmac “by charging a runoff fee for every hundred square feet of parking lot.”

    That might well make sense. It shouldn’t be too difficult, using aerial photography, to calculate the square footage of impermeable surface on individual properties. Adjustments could be made for the existence of curbs, gutters, storm sewers, drainage ditches, retaining ponds and other control measures. Whatever the final calculus, however, the solution should have nothing to do with waste in the school system or the improvidence of water/sewer fees. The levy should adhere to one core principle: Polluters pay. The more they pollute, the more they pay. The less they pollute, the less they pay.

  • America’s Quiet Demographic Alignment

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In his landmark book, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” Richard Florida divided the United States between thriving cities with large numbers of creative-class workers — artists, educators, entrepreneurs, professionals, scientists and engineers — and the down-in-the-mouth cities with fewer creatives that were doomed to stagnation if not outright decay. The creatives, Florida argued, were drawn to hip places like Boston, San Francisco and university towns noted for their cultural diversity and tolerance. The greatest danger to American prosperity, he argued in a follow-up treatise, “The Flight of the Creative Class,” was the rise of cultural narrow-mindedness and intolerance in America and emergence of competing creative centers abroad.

    I think Florida makes some valid points but the real world is more complicated, as demonstrated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece written by Michael Barone, a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report. Barone does not address Florida’s creative-class theory explicitly, but his findings tend to undermine it. He categorizes American metropolitan areas into four groups:

    1. The Coastal Megalopolises. These include New York, L.A., San Francisco/San Jose, San Diego, Chicago, Miami, Boston and Washington. (Note: Most of these meet Florida’s criteria as centers of cultural diversity and tolerance.) To all outward appearances, they are prospering. But take a close look, says Barone. While immigrants are moving into these metros in large numbers, native Americans are leaving. New York had a domestic outflow of eight percent in the six years following 2000 and an immigrant inflow of six percent. “Americans are moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they’re moving out of our largest metro areas.” Overall, populations are stagnant.
    2. Interior Boomtowns. These metros, none of which touch the Atlantic or Pacific coast, see surging populations. They couple significant immigrant inflow with even greater domestic inflow, plus a natural increase (births exceeding deaths) much higher than the coastal megalopolises. Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Atlanta larger than Boston. Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville and Richmond enjoy growing populations and economies.
    3. The Rust Belt. The Rust Belt cities, whose woes became apparent in the 1980s, are still suffering. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo and Rochester are losing population. A modest immigrant inflow fails to offset the exodus of native-born Americans. Natural increase is very low. Writes Barone: “Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation.”
    4. Static Cities. A number of cities are treading water demographically, with domestic outflow/immigrant inflow roughly matching. They’re holding their own economically, but none are surging ahead, and some are in danger of falling back. These include Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas city and, closer to home, Norfolk.

    Barone’s interest is to probe the political implications of all this movement. It portends well for Republicans nationally, he argues, as the population shifts from blue states to red states. I’m more interested in the dynamics of wealth creation than partisan politics, but the voting patterns of these metro areas serves as a rough substitute for the (Richard) Floridian value of tolerance of/worship of cultural diversity, a dominant Democratic Party theme.

    Coastal Megalopolises: Kerry, 61 %
    Interior Boomtowns: Bush 56%
    Rust Belt: Kerry 54%
    Static Cities: Kerry 52%

    What Barone does not tell us is whether the migrating native-born Americans are members of the creative class. I would hypothesize that a disproportionate number of them are. They are certainly better educated than the immigrants who are replacing them. Regardless, a large segment of the population is picking up and leaving. What is driving them?

    I would hypothesize that the metro areas experiencing the greatest outflow of native-born Americans have the highest costs: higher taxes, higher housing prices, longer (hence more expensive) commutes, higher general living costs, and so on. People may value hipness, coolness, diversity and tolerance, but they place a greater value on lower taxes, less expensive housing and shorter commutes — more disposable income and a greater material quality of life.

    Undoubtedly, we could probe deeper. Young, unmarried people probably place a greater premium on “hipness.” Married couples with children arguably place a greater value on lower taxes, affordable housing and lower general living costs. If one percent of the population picks up and moves on the basis of such criteria each year, it’s barely noticeable year to year. But decade to decade, it represents a massive realignment.

  • Another Transportation Alternative: River Barges

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    T. Parker Host, a Norfolk maritime company, is seeking federal seed money to run shipping containers from Norfolk to the Port of Richmond, bypassing congested highways — Interstate 64 and U.S. 460 — out of Hampton Roads. According to the Associated Press, the proposed James River Barge Line would move at least 5,000 containers the first year, with a goal of shipping 250,000 annually on two barges making trips twice a week.

    Said U.S. Maritime Administration Administrator Sean T. Connaughton (the former chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors): “They have a very good business plan. It’s becoming more and more difficult to build our way out of this congestion. So using our waterways makes an enormous amount of sense.”

    Although T. Parker Host anticipates that the business would become profitable, it is not willing to shoulder the anticipated start up costs of the first year, which could amount to $750,000.

  • Now, a Transmission Line Controversy for Tidewater

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Dominion Virginia Power has asked the State Corporation Commission for permission to build two transmission lines to meet increasing demand for electricity in Hampton Roads, reports the Associated Press. The two lines, totaling 81.5 miles in length, would cost an estimated $223 million, crossing Dinwiddie County, Suffolk, Prince George, Sussex, Southampton and Isle of Wight counties.

    It looks like Virginia, which has one of the most electricity-intensive regional economies in the world, has reached a crossroads: We can continue down a path of relentlessly growing demand for electricity, which we meet by building large new power plants in isolated areas and connecting to population centers with transmission lines…. or we can get serious about conservation, energy efficiency, small-scale power sources close to the consumer, and, where economical, renewable energy.

    There’s no way to avoid adding new capacity. But we don’t have to criss-cross every corner of the state in transmission lines.

  • The Wild One Hits a Home Run on Storm Water Run-Off

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder strikes me as a loose cannon in many ways, but he is pushing an idea for funding stormwater drainage and water quality clean-up that has real merit. As Michael Martz writes in the Times-Dispatch, the Wild One wants to impose an annual fee on homeowners, businesses and even not-for-profit institutions that varies according to the amount of stormwater run-off they generate from roofs and pavement. This idea, if approved by City Council, could provide a template for dealing with storm water run-off across the state.

    The fees would generate about $15 million a year, enough to fund an estimated $100 million in storm water improvements over the next 16 years — mostly ditches, ditch maintenance, catch basins and enforcement of water-quality regulations.

    The fee will, of course, be highly unpopular. Homeowners in the city are reeling from soaring personal property taxes, among the highest water and sewer rates in the country, and a meals & lodging tax enacted for the purpose of funding a performing arts center that never got built. I am not defending the city’s overall tax level. I am merely saying that, once you’ve made the decision to pay for storm water improvements, this is the most logical way to do it.

    Wilder’s proposal offers a logical nexus between who pays, how much they pay and what they’re paying for. The more run-off property owners generate, the more they would pay. The fee would apply not only to homeowners and businesses — it would apply, as it should, to not-for-profit institutions like churches and Virginia Commonwealth University, which are exempt from property taxes. Additionally, property owners would be able to cut their annual fees by up to 50 percent if they reduced the quantity of runoff or improve its quality.

    Council President William Pantele expressed concern that the proposal was submitted so far into the budget-formulation process. But, he conceded, “It’s the right thing to do.” The proposal is designed to enable Richmond to comply with state regulations, scheduled to take effect in 2009, governing run-off into the James River and its tributaries.

    Now, if we can just apply the same logic to development in Virginia’s fast-growth counties, with their endless roads and sprawling parking lots and nitrogen-laden lawns.

    Update: Bart Hinkle, the Times-Dispatch columnist, questions whether it’s reasonable to hit Richmond homeowners with another tax burden.

  • VILLAINS ON HALLOWED GROUND?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In his column “Missing the Point” (30 April 2007) and in his Blog post “Conservatives Should Embrace, Not Trample, Journey Through Hallowed Ground” (30 April 2007) Jim Bacon appropriately challenges the unfounded spins that has been placed on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) project. These attempts to discredit JTHG are driven by hyper-ideological fantasy unrelated to the facts.

    There are potential negative impacts from Journey Through Hallowed Ground, especially if the project is very successful. These issues need to be carefully examined and addressed. Jim notes most of the important ones at the end of “Missing the Point.” There are however, no grounds for attacks on the project based on the political, ideological and personal scarlet herrings tossed up to date.

    While Jim takes on the ideologues, we would like to go back to the prior assaults on JTHG that were posted on Bacon’s Rebellion Blog in response to Jim Bacon’s earlier column “Honoring Hallowed Ground” (16 April 2007) and the Blog post “Saving the Countryside” of the same date. These unfounded attacks were launched by an individual blogger. The comments were perhaps well-intended but badly misinformed on both facts and context.

    The blogger vituperated in several posts concerning supposed disingenuous actions of the president of JTHG. There are no substantive grounds for these attacks on Cate Magennis Wyatt. While those familiar with the situation know there is not basis for the comments and while Ms. Wyatt is fully capable of defending herself, there is a larger point that impacts all discussion of human settlement patterns.

    We have known Ms. Wyatt for nearly three decades and have a first hand experience based understanding of her role in eastern Loudoun County development projects along the VA Route 7 Corridor – Countryside, Landsdown, etc. – and her work in Governor Wilder’s administration.
    There is no justification for suggesting her role in JTHG is less than an honorable endeavor or that it is inconsistent with her work in Loudoun County two decades ago. It would be just as silly to say she was responsible for Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine as it would be to suggest she paid for a Millennium party at Cheops with illicit gains from development in eastern Loudoun County. There is, however, the larger issue: Developers as villains.

    The blogger who attacked Ms. Wyatt described the transformation of eastern Loudoun County over the past three decades in graphic terms. Many would agree with his assessment. At the multi-Beta Community scale, the VA Route 7 corridor is settlement pattern dysfunction squared.

    Even if Ms. Wyatt was “the John (Til) Hazel of eastern Loudoun” – which she was not – what happened in eastern Loudoun County is not the fault any developer or of “developers” in general.

    As we document in The Shape of the Future, there are no villains in the agglomeration of dysfunctional settlement patterns on the scale of eastern Loudoun County.

    There is blame to be assessed and it must be widely distributed but it is collective blame. The root problem is the cumulative impact of billions of decisions by millions of individuals, households, enterprises, agencies and institutions. Almost all of these decisions are made in the mistaken belief that the actions that were taken were in the best interest of the actor.

    If one set out to establish a hierarchy of culpability, elected officials egged on by political donations intended secure favored actions are perhaps first in line. Governance practitioners at the municipal, county, state and federal level are right behind them because they knew – or should have known – the negative cumulative impact of these acts.

    Of course developers, builders and their corporate and institutional partners share blame for the end result. They were driven by the desire to optimize short term profit. However, they were playing the hand they were dealt given in a context established by overarching forces over which they had little control. Most importantly, they were catering to the assumed demand of an uninformed market without functional feedback systems in place. In this case the feedback system would be all the actors having to pay the full cost of their location decisions.

    When all the actors are lined up, most of the blame – for the context and the results – rests with citizens and their uninformed and unintelligent actions in the market and in the voting booth. Right next to them is MainStream Media which has failed to provide the information upon which more intelligent decisions could be based. MainStream Media has also failed to attack Geographic Illiteracy / Locational Obliviousness for reasons we explore in our current column “Recent Clippings.”

    By in large all the actors were doing what they thought was in their best interest – specifically their immediate, short term interest. There are bad apples in every category. Some knew, or should have known that what they were doing would hurt others but In response to Jim Bacon’s earlier column “Honoring Hallowed Ground” (16 April 2007) and the Blog post “Saving the Countryside” of the same date.

    If any of the actors had paid attention to intelligent analysis of human settlement patterns that have been carried out over the past 80 years all would have known they were taking actions that would have a negative cumulative impact on every individual, household, enterprise, agency and institution. That, however, does not make any of them “villains” who are the proximate cause of existing conditions.

    As we note from time to time those who profit from (or hope to profit from) the continued trajectory of Business-As-Usual especially those who call themselves “conservationists” are the closest to being villains but even they do not deserve a red “V” on their forehead.

    Any attempt to single out villains rather than working to understand what drives the evolution of dysfunctional settlement patterns in places like eastern Loudoun County only generates conflict and divisiveness. This finger pointing just makes matters worse.

    EMR

  • Biking for Health and Mother Earth

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    While Virginia talks the talk about bicycles as a transportation option — the Virginia Department of Transportation is holding hearings around the state to solicit public input about incorporating walking and biking trails into its transportation plans– two cities in Europe are walking the poverbial walk. In Amsterdam, 40 percent of commuters get to work by bike; in Copenhagen more than one third do. And both cities, according to today’s Wall Street Journal, are making significant investments to upgrade their bicycling infrastructure.

    The Dutch and Danes have been bicycling enthusiasts for decades, touting the transportation mode as a form of exercise and an antidote for traffic congestion. The impetus now for increased investment comes from the conviction that substituting bicycle trips for car trips can reduce the carbon dioxide emissions believed to cause global warming. In Amsterdam, says the Journal, “the policy goal is to have bicycle trips replace many short car trips, which account for 6% of total emissions from cars.”

    Denmark plans to increase spending on bike lanes on 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) of roadway. Amsterdam is undertaking a capital improvement program that includes construction of a 10,000-bike parking garage at the main train station. Norway hopes to raise bicycle traffic to at least of 8 percent of all travel by 2015, double its current level, while Sweden aims to jump from 12 percent to 16 percent by 2010.

    The European commitment to bicycling has spurred innovation in bicycle design. There are cargo bikes and bikes with attachments for children. From what I can tell, however, no one has come up with a good all-weather bike. Some days, you’re just going to get wet.

    In a world in which obesity is one of the greatest threats to public health, the surge in cycling does not represent a regression to a pre-industrial past, it represents a step forward to post-industrial well being. That’s justification enough for Virginia to invest more in bicycling, even if you’re not into the Global Climate Change thing.

    There’s just one hurdle I can’t get over — the idea of arriving at work dripping with persipiration. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way. Until employers start outfitting their offices with showers and lockers, for me, bicycling will never amount to more than a form of recreation or exercise. Emulating the Dutch and Danes in America will take more than new bicycle paths, it will take a major shift in cultural attitudes.

  • Unconstitutional on Three Counts?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Patrick McSweeny, a Richmond attorney and former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, questions the constitutionality of The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007 on at least three grounds:

    1. Granting regional transportation authorities the power to impose regional taxes violates the Constitution’s limitation of taxing powers to the General Assembly and local and regional governments.
    2. Authorization of $3 billion in state bonds violates the Constitutional requirement for voters to approve the issue of tax-supported bonds.
    3. Passage of an omnibus transportation and land-use bill violates the Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single object (an argument that Phil Rodokanakis has made on this blog).

    Read McSweeny’s column in the Times-Dispatch here. I’m no constitutional scholar, so I can’t weigh the merits of McSweeney’s arguments, although I would say they seem to be at least superficially plausible. What are the arguments on the other side? Can readers weigh in?

    Update: Here’s the bigger story, as reported by the Washington Post:

    State and local lawmakers from Northern Virginia are challenging the legality of Virginia‘s recently inked transportation plan in a late effort to halt a deal that is expected to raise about $400 million a year for new projects in the region. Opponents of the plan argue that allowing the appointed members of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide on tax and fee increases violates the state’s constitution.

  • Richmond’s Diabolical Plan to Reduce Congestion

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Below, Jim discusses the possibility that congestion pricing will be introduced in DC.

    Well, that’s all fine and dandy. But for a real look at how to squeeze cars out of a city, we need look no further than our own River City. Don at Save Richmond collects some choice examples of how Richmond’s great minds are making it harder for people to park in the Bottom, for new businesses to open there (because they can’t get parking spaces) and, if they manage to overcome those two barriers, let’s not forget the “temporary” meals tax that is dedicated to funding the Lazarus-like Performing Arts Center.

    Want to cut congestion? Don’t look to DC, or New York, or anywhere else. The best example is right under our very noses.

  • Thinking Through Proffers in Albemarle

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Albemarle County supervisors are wrestling with an interesting question: How much should developers pay the county for new housing to offset the cost of providing government services. The number tentatively agreed upon: $17,000 per single-family home.

    The question goes to the heart of the growth-management debate. As Jeremy Borden with the Daily Progress writes, new households mean more children in schools and more drivers on roads. (It also means more people requiring fire, police and rescue services, more people frequenting libraries, and more lawns and parking lots generating more run-off into rivers and streams.) The board came up with $17,000 based on the county’s planned capital projects and comparisons to other counties, including Chesterfield.

    Personally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for developers (who pass on the cost to home owners) to help defray the county’s capital expenses to build new school buildings, police stations, libraries, fire stations and other amenities that the new residents will demand. But I don’t think the Albemarle supervisors are carrying their logic quite far enough.

    The cost of providing infrastructure varies widely by project. Some developments are more compact and have more infrastructure-efficient design. Some locations, especially those farthest from existing population centers, cost more to serve than to others. Some, by virtue of proximity to population centers and existing infrastructure, pose only modest new burdens on local government.

    Albemarle — and every local government, for that matter — needs to devise a sliding scale in which the proffer or impact fee varies according to the fiscal impact of the development — and the fee needs to apply to all new houses, not just those in projects that require rezoning. As counties take over responsibility for building and maintaining roads, such a sliding-scale proffer/impact fee is all the more crucial. Houses in transportation-efficient communities would incur lower burdens than houses built on 20-acre farmettes. Developers (and, by extension, home buyers) would be rewarded for building (and living in) communities that required less infrastructure investment.

    Exacting the same proffer/impact fee from home owners, regardless of the design or location of their community, is just another form of socialism. It helps the local government recover its costs, but it does not encourage infrastructure-efficient design or location.

  • Even D.C. Is Discussing Congestion Tolls

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Washington, D.C., officials have asked for federal funding to explore ways to reduce traffic in the capital city, including congestion-pricing tolls on city roads and bridges, reports Eric Weiss with the Washington Post.

    The idea is very much in the conceptual stage — but it puts liberal Washington (John Kerry 90%, George Bush 9%) ahead of Virginia, where the only discussion of congestion pricing occurs deep in the bowels of the Virginia Department of Transportation and was an option studiously ignored by Virginia’s putatively market-oriented politicians throughout the extended transportation-funding debate.

    Following in the footsteps of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who pointed to the examples of London and Stockholm as major cities using congestion pricing, Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said last week that a London-style approach was a “good idea” that warranted a closer look.

  • State Dems vs. GOP Online

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Lowell Feld over at Raising Kaine compares and contrasts the new Democratic Party of Virginia website with the new Republican Party of Virginia website. Although in Feld’s words he “bleeds Democratic blue,” he gives the RPV website much higher marks. While the Dem website looks good graphically, I agree with Feld that it amounts to an “empty shell.” The GOP website is loaded with fresh content, and it taps into the energy of the Republican blogosphere.

    For all intents and purposes, the home page of the GOP website functions as a blog…. Which should come as no surprise, as the GOP communications director is Saun Kenney, who won the position largely on the basis of his reknown as a Republican blogger. One of the website’s strengths, as Feld points out, is that it links to more than 30 GOP or GOP-leaning blogs, tapping into the the party’s “netroots.”

    There is dynamic new content on the Democratic Party website, but it’s buried. Other features, such as photos and videos, contain nothing new. Nobody’s interested in photographs from the 2005 gubernatorial campaign. In other respects, the website has evolved backwards. In a previous incarnation, when Laura Bland was communications director, the Dems published a feisty electronic newsletter entitled the “Demo Memo.” The GOP had nothing to compare with it. The concept was to combine the “push” of the Demo Memo to party activists with the “pull” of the website. The Demo Memo would drive traffic to the website; the website would sign up new subscribers for the newsletter. But the Demo Memo apparently has been relegated to the trash heap. The website fires on one cylinder, offering people very little reason to visit more than once.

    Given the success of Raising Kaine in attracting readers, the DPV would be well advised to heed Feld’s advice.

  • $28 Million Conservation Tax Credit Deal Blows Up

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Virginia Department of Taxation has denied $28 million in tax credits claimed for conservation easements set up by the Silver Companies as part of Celebrate Virginia, a major mixed-use project in the Fredericksburg area. Silver Companies had sold most of the credits to private investors at about 50 cents on the dollar.

    Last week, reports Rusty Dennen with the Free Lance-Star, the tax department sent letters to hundreds of those investors, informing them that the tax breaks could not be used. The Silver enterprise has not decided whether to file an administrative appeal or go to court.

    In its letter, Taxation did not provide any reason for the denial. But the action follows an initiative in which the agency has been checking assessed values on some large easement parcels around the state to see if any had been overvalued or were ineligible for inclusion in the conservation program.

    Conservation easements are a centerpiece of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s goal to preserve open space in Virginia. However, the General Assembly tighted up the program last year, providing more oversight on land valuation and imposing a $100 million cap on the total amount of credits that can be issued in a given year.

    The legislature was perfectly reasonable to cap the amount of tax credits offered — fiscal prudence cannot permit an open-ended and uncontrollable drain on state tax revenue. However, the existence of a cap creates a new set of issues: When the credits are a finite commodity, who qualifies to receive them? Are the credits granted on a first-come, first-serve basis, or do some property owners move to the head of the line? Should a single business like the Silver Companies qualify for $28 million worth? Did the Silver Companies go too far and ask for too much? Or is it being singled out for scrutiny simply for its size — or perhaps for political reasons?

    The problem with the conservation-easements tax credit as currently structured is that the most important criterion — the value of the easements to the public — is not even a consideration. As Ed Risse has pointed out, the state is expending public money (in the form of tax credits) to underwrite conservation easements that are established on a haphazard basis, reflecting the idiocyncratic priorities of individual property owners. There is little coherence to the easements — the parcels are scattered randomly across the countryside.

    Should there not be some system for establishing priorities for granting the tax credits? Surely easements that preserve valued habitats, or heritage sites, or viewsheds have greater value to the public and warrant the tax credits over easements on some unremarkable piece of property, or even dicier, easements used to facilitate large real estate deals.

    The General Assembly needs to revisit this issue.

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