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

    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?

    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 Baconโ€™s Rebellion Blog in response to Jim Baconโ€™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 โ€“ Countryside, Landsdown, etc. โ€“ and her work in Governor Wilderโ€™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” โ€“ which she was not โ€“ 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 โ€“ or should have known โ€“ 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 โ€“ for the context and the results โ€“ 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 โ€“ 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 Baconโ€™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

    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?

    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

    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

    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 countyโ€™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

    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

    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

    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.


  • Big Green Comes to Albemarle

    Construction will commence soon on one of the largest environmentally friendly developments in Virginia, reports the Daily Progress. Belvedere, under development by the Stonehaus group, will put some 775 houses, 200 apartment units, 10,000 square feet of retail space and 70,000 square feet of office space on a 207-acre property north of Charlottesville.

    Writes Brian McNeill:

    Each of Belvedereโ€™s houses will be Energy Star and Earthcraft certified – recognitions of a homeโ€™s energy efficiency and sustainability. Moreover, the development will include an organic farm, a dog park, a village green and amphitheater, grassy parks, a storm water park, a system of biking and hiking trails and the preservation of a flood plain and more than 40 percent of the siteโ€™s green space, trees and vegetation.

    Belvedere (which means โ€œbeautiful viewโ€ in Italian) will be a terraced site, allowing residents to look out over the Rivanna River and its flood plain.

    The project also will incorporate wind- and solar-powered multi-family buildings and commercial structures, as well as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified buildings in the projectโ€™s civic core.

    The historic property was once known as Free State, one of only two free black communities in Albemarle County during the ante-bellum era.

    Stonehaus is promoting the community as a “sustainable” development. Energy efficiency is expected to be a major selling point as energy costs rise. The company cites a study that found home values increase $20 in value for every $1 saved in energy costs. Earthcraft-certified homes can slash as much as 40 percent off the typical utility bill. An emphasis on mixed uses and walkability also will cut driving.

    With 2,500-square-foot houses expected to sell in the $400,000 to $500,000 range — pretty pricey for Albemarle County — the company will need all the razmatazz it can generate.

    (Image credit: Cline Design.)


  • NoVa’s Shift to Smaller-Scale Road Projects

    Eric Weiss with the Washington Post previews the coming shift in funding from mega-projects like the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the Interstate 95/495 mixing bowl to spot road improvements designed to ameliorate local congestion.

    Under The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007, Northern Virginia stands to gain $400 million a year in new revenue. Instead of funding the mega-projects still on the books, such as the Rail to Dulles heavy rail project and HOT lanes on Northern Virginia interstates, which have other sources of funding, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority is expected to spend its money on smaller projects. Writes Weiss:

    Transportation analysts say the biggest impact can be made on projects such as the widening of the Fairfax County Parkway from Route 123 to the Dulles Toll Road and raising the parkway to go over Monument Drive and Fair Lakes Parkway, two of the most traffic-choked intersections in the region. Other possible fixes include lengthening the left-turn lane at routes 123 and 50/29 in Fairfax City, upgrading the intersection of Braddock Road and Route 29 and re-timing traffic lights throughout the region.

    “We haven’t, for the last decade, had a reasonable secondary-road program for Northern Virginia, and this money is a huge plus in addressing a problem that has many, many sides,” said Pierce R. Homer, Virginia’s transportation secretary.

    I opposed the tax increases on the grounds that much of the money will be wasted without fundamental change to land use and governance systems. But things could be worse. From a strategic perspective, the shift in priorities makes sense. Smaller projects often offer a higher Return on Investment, as measured by congestion mitigated per dollar spent, than the high-profile projects. They’re less likely to encounter delays and cost overruns, too.

    Also, it’s encouraging to see that NoVa planners are looking to improve the efficiency of the existing road network — as opposed, say, to building new roads into the countryside and extending the pattern of scattered, disconnected, low-density development deeper into the countryside. Please note that “re-timing traffic lights throughout the region,” an alternative to laying more asphalt, is under consideration.

    It’s not much, but you have to take comfort where you can.


  • Common Sense Prevails: The Looney Loophole Closed

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has issued an executive order closing the loophole that allowed Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho to purchase two handguns. From now on, any Virginian subjected to a court-ordered, involuntary commitment for outpatient mental treatment will be barred from purchasing a gun. The court order must be entered into a state database used for background checks and shared with federal law-enforcement agencies. (See Michael Hardy’s treatment in the Times-Dispatch.)

    As far as I’m concerned, this is common sense. Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to purchase guns, any more than felons convicted of violent crimes should be. The measure was backed by Attorney General Bob McDonnell, indicating that support cuts across partisan divides.

    However, I’m not under any illusion that this is the end of the story. First of all, the executive order won’t stop all mentally unstable people from buying guns, only those who have been ordered to receive mental treatment. Secondly, someone — lawmakers, perhaps; judges, more likely — will have to determine exactly how this rule applies.

    Question: Does an an involuntary commitment amount to a scarlet letter, branding an individual for life — even if he has been successfully treated and no longer represents a danger?

    Question: What rights of appeal does a mentally ill (or formerly mentally ill) person have to prevent the loss of civil rights granted other citizens?


  • The Housing Bubble: The Pain Intensifies

    Home ownership is a wonderful thing — if you can afford it. Given the lax lending standards the prevailed during the housing bubble, however, a lot of people wound up with houses they couldn’t afford. It’s not just the known expenses like principle and interest payments that kill you, it’s the unanticipated expenses — the rising tax rates, the termite infestations, the fallen branches, the broken furnace, the leaky roof, the broken furnace — that breaks the bank.

    Now that housing prices are falling, and people are finding it harder to borrow against their equity to raise cash, foreclosure rates are climbing. Dennis Gartman, a Suffolk resident and author of the Gartman Letter newsletter, has been warning of the consequences of the real estate bubble for quite some time. A friend forwarded this quote from a recent commentary — with scary numbers of foreclosure rates in Hampton Roads — by e-mail:

    Last year, even we began to be concerned about real estate prices that were too strong, and were more and more concerned about the over-extended nature of late home buyers who seemed intent upon buying in panic, pushing bids right past the offers on homes that were badly built. Those homes now are a burden, not a joy; they are held by buyers incapable of paying for them, with loans made under circumstances that only a decade or so ago would have been considered ludicrous and “un-bankerly” in nature. But made they were, and now collapsing they are.

    We note that here in usually protected, conservative, laid-back southern Virginia the numbers of “seriously troubled loans” on homes are rising at a frightening pace. In Chesapeake, a quintessential suburb, near the Atlantic Ocean and nestled against the N. Carolina border, with quick access to the Outer Banks, foreclosures are up 46% [year over year]. In Norfolk, the navy’s home, and a place that has enjoyed inordinately strong economic growth for years, foreclosures are up 45% vs. a year ago. In Virginia Beach, hard upon the Atlantic Ocean and also facing north into the Chesapeake Bay, they are up 54%… and across Virginia generally foreclosures are up 49%. Thankfully, here in “surprising” Suffolk, foreclosures are actually down [year over year]; but that may only be because of the very small number this year and last and because Suffolk is the fastest growing city in Virginia due to the huge amount of land and the still small population.

    “The point here is that even in Virginia the problem of foreclosures is now hard upon us, and that is in an environment where unemployment is at its lowest level in history. What then shall happen when unemployment begins to rise… even slightly. “


  • Conservatives Should Embrace, Not Trample, Journey Through Hallowed Ground

    I find myself getting sucked into the controversy over the Journey Through Hallowed Ground more than I anticipated. A group of hard-core property rights groups has rallied against the federal legislation to designate the 175-mile Journey region as a National Heritage Area. I’d ignored these guys until now because I deemed their views not only as fringe but inaccurate and irrelevant.

    But there is no ignoring them any more. Ron Utt, a fellow with the Heritage Foundation, and a man whose views I respect (I’ve published five of his columns on Bacon’s Rebellion over the years) has published a paper, “Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act.” A scholar of Utt’s stature, working for a credible organization like Heritage, gives gravitas to the fringe groups that they don’t deserve. Sadly, Utt gets the story horribly wrong.

    In a nutshell, Utt views the JTHG as a scheme for strengthening the hand of the landed elite in Virginia’s northern piedmont in their aim to restrict property rights and curtail the development that threatens their lifestyles. In my column this week, “Missing the Point,” I argue (a) that the Journey is a grassroots movement, not an artiface of the elite, (b) that it is dedicated to exactly what it says it is, the preservation of history, and (c) that there is no evidence, only inference and innuendo, to support Utt’s view that the Journey represents a threat to property rights.

    There’s a larger issue at stake, which I had hoped to develop in a separate column this week, but lacked the time. Quoting myself:

    The challenge, as I see it, is analogous to one that Newt Gingrich articulated in his most recent “Winning the Future” newsletter, in which he outlined the case for “green conservatism.” The conservation and environmental movements have been hijacked by big-government, command-and-control liberalism, Gingrich argues, in large measure because conservatives have spent too much energy criticizing the flaws in liberal ideas and not enough proposing their own solutions.

    The Journey Through Hallowed Ground represents a grassroots response pushing market solutions to the challenge of historic preservation. Philosophically, the Journey is consistent with conservative values. It should be held up as a model for emulation. Conservatives are very short-sighted to malign and mischaracterize it.


  • More Creative Destruction of Outmoded Ideas: Bacon’s Rebellion Publishes Again

    The April 30, 2007, edition of Bacon’s Rebellion has been published. You can view it in its entirety here. Don’t miss an issue — sign up for a free subscription here.

    This week’s features include:

    Missing the Point
    A Heritage Foundation paper attacking the Journey Through Hallowed Ground as a tool of Virginia’s landed elite is unsupported by the facts. Worse, it slights the Journey’s important contributions.
    by James A. Bacon

    Feed the Creative Temperament
    Rural areas should chase more talent, fewer jobs.
    by Doug Koelemay

    Recent Clippings
    Overshadowed by the horror at Virginia Tech, the MainStream Media contributed some solid reporting last week about taxes and the environment. All the stories lacked was an overarching context.
    by EM Risse

    Liberate the Liquor Business
    More money for roads, more choice for consumers, more focused enforcement of drinking laws — what’s not to like about the privatization of state ABC stores?
    by Geoff Segal

    Healing the Hokie Nation
    The massacre at Virginia Tech was a horror, but tragedy and evil confronts us daily in lesser numbers. The answer is Christian lovingkindness.
    by James Atticus Bowden

    Footing the Bill
    Fairfax County has promised to make good any cost overruns in the Rail-to-Dulles project. Supervisors should warn taxpayers that they could wind up footing the bill.
    by Phil Rodokanakis

    What’s Eating Middle America?
    Illegal immigration tops the list. The United States will have illegals as long as a strong economy inspires foreigners to sneak across the border. The only “solution” — recession — is not one we really want.
    by Norman Leahy