Bacon's Rebellion

In his state of the Commonwealth speech last night, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine made the case for two education initiatives: Giving teachers an extra three percent pay raise, and funding pilot programs to expand the Virginia Preschool Initiative.

I’ve got nothing against paying teachers well. What I object to is rewarding all teachers, the good and the bad, equally. The Governor didn’t say how many millions of dollars it would take to increase teacher salaries by three percent, but it’s a significant amount of money. Why not use that money to reward the really good teachers, the ones we want to keep in the system, instead of rewarding the deadwood?

As for the preschool pilot programs, I would say that testing new ideas is good, experimentation is good. Let’s see if the preschool programs accomplish what they’re touted to accomplish. But if the pilots are to be genuine demonstrations of feasibility, not simply a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent, then I would suggest following the advice of Bacon’s Rebellion columnist Chris Braunlich:

The General Assembly has been asked to fund both the pilot program and creation of a quality ratings system. Legislators would be wrong to reject it out of hand. But they would be more wrong to approve it without insisting on a pilot that will actually study the effectiveness of universal preschool or a rating system that will give some sense of what this will all cost somewhere down the road.

Of all the major legislative initiatives that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine touted in his State of the Commonwealth speech last night, the best was his health care package. For the most part, his proposals would do no harm. Indeed, they could actually do some good.

First and foremost, Kaine understands that people need to assume responsibility for their own health. Kaine’s remarks deserve to be quoted at length (even moreso, as the MSM totally ignored them in their coverage of the speech):

We do an outstanding job of treating people when they are sick. But, we don’t do very well at keeping our people healthy. While there are a growing number of exceptions, our health care system does not consistently encourage healthy living in a meaningful way.

I applaud the many Virginians — including those in this chamber—who have taken personal responsibility for improving their health. I want to set that same kind of example for Virginians, and you’ll see me out there — getting my weight and blood pressure checked, getting my flu shot, walking, hiking, and riding my bike. I hope to see you there with me.

As one of Virginia’s largest employers, the Commonwealth can also set an example for others by implementing policies that support employee health. We are encouraging our employees to make better health choices, by expanding the Healthy Virginians initiative. Healthy Virginians offers state employees a variety of tools to exercise more, eat better and stop smoking.

I have also proposed changes to the state health insurance policy to promote good health, not just cover treatments after the fact. And our Medicaid program recently announced changes to do the same with the state’s nearly 700,000 Medicaid recipients. …

I have tasked my Secretary of Health and Human Resources and my Secretary of Education to work together to improve health education in our schools and improve the food that is available to our students every day.

Consistent with his idea that Virginians need to take more responsibility for their own health, Kaine wants to help them become better consumers of health care services. Said Kaine:

Late last year, I was the first governor to join with U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to partner in making our health care system more transparent and more focused on quality and safety. If we work with our health care providers to make these changes, we will enhance the quality and consistency of care we receive for our medical dollar, encourage a more cost-effective use of the system, and increase patient safety.

I applaud the Governor for not adopting the intellectually slovenly approach of tackling Virginia’s health care crisis by throwing money at it. He is absolutely right. Virginians need to take more responsibility for their own health, both by adopting healthier lifestyles and by becoming more demanding consumers of health care. The path to a better, more affordable health care system is not to encumber hospitals, physicians and other providers with more regulations. It’s to empower Virginians to act in the marketplace to demand more value, more productivity and better outcomes.

Following up on his announcement of earlier this week, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine used his State of the Commonwealth speech to plug two narrowly targeted tax cuts.

One initiative would raise the filing threshold for state income tax from $7,000 to $12,000 for an individual and from $14,000 to $24,000 for married couples. That would eliminate income tax liability for an estimated 147,000 Virginians.

I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I’d like a little income tax relief myself. The 2004 “tax reform” stuck it to wage earners in my income bracket. Plus, Gov. Kaine wants to raise another $850 million in revenues, much of it new taxes on the middle class. (Let’s not even talk about the federal income tax, with its highly progressive “clawbacks.”) On the other hand, I’ll say this: Easing the tax burden is a better way to help the poor and working class than creating new entitlement programs.

Kaine’s other idea is a very bad one: He proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow local governments to exempt up to 20 percent of the value of an owner-occupied home or farm, providing targeted tax relief to homeowners. The idea, I guess, is to shift the tax burden to commercial businesses. This comes from the same guy who, earlier in his speech, bragged about Virginia’s recognition as “the most business-friendly state in America”.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Wherever such tax relief was passed, it would only increase the “beggar thy neighbor” competition between local governments for commercial development, and it would only aggravate the perverse perception that residential development doesn’t “pay its way.” If you want to intensify the paucity of affordable and accessible housing in Virginia, this is one sure-fire way to do it.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine used the occasion of his annual State of the Commonwealth address last night to outline the framework of a potential deal on transportation funding. “There are significant areas of agreement between the House and Senate on this matter,” he said in a conciliatory tone that contrasted with previous threats to make transportation a major election issue. “There is just too much agreement here to walk away from the issue for a second year in a row.”

What are those areas of agreement? Quoting from his speech:

• Statewide revenue needs amount to approximately $1 billion dollars more per year.
• Taxes on auto insurance premiums should be earmarked forever for transportation solutions.
• Abusive drivers should pay stiffer fines, which would be used for transportation needs.
• Some surplus general funds can appropriately be spent on transportation.
• Regions should be granted some degree of autonomy in raising funds for local projects.

As I read the political tea leaves, there is a very good chance that a master compromise will be achieved along these lines. The mood is pervasive that “something must be done.” Inevitably, “something” will be. Of course, any such transportation-funding package would represent a victory for Business As Usual, severing the nexus between those who use the roads and those who pay for them. For me, the sole consolation is that a general, statewide tax increase does not seem to be on the table.

Give the Governor credit for recognizing that more money alone won’t cure Virginia’s transportation woes. “In 2006, we took the first real steps to link transportation and land use planning through legislation concerning traffic impact statements, transfers of development rights, and cluster housing,” he said. “This year, let’s take the next steps towards smart growth management.” (“Smart growth management”? That’s a phrase you won’t read in the MSM accounts of the Governor’s speech. As usual, reporters focused exclusively on the tax question.)

Kaine reiterated ideas that he’d floated before, and he appeared to be receptive to the House of Delegates plan to curtail the intake of subdivision streets into the state system. Key points from the speech:

• Give local government authority to reject rezoning proposals when new developments would overwhelm the existing transportation infrastructure.
• Limit commercial curb cuts onto transportation corridors in order to preserve the traffic-carrying capacity of those corridors.
• Create incentives for new subdivision streets to be designed so as to reduce congestion and long-term maintenance costs. “The state should not automatically pick up the maintenance costs for new roads unless those roads are designed to move traffic efficiently.”

Some elements of Kaine’s land use reforms will prove controversial. Some may criticize the entire package as grossly inadequate. I agree — these measures barely scratch the surface of the Fundamental Change that’s needed. But they represent a start that, hopefully, can be built upon.

If Kaine succeeds in negotiating a grand compromise along these lines, will traffic congestion in Virginia be tamed? Not by a long shot. These reforms will tinker on the margins: continuing to waste billions of dollars on the wrong priorities and bringing only incremental improvement to human settlement patterns. But we can be thankful of one thing: It could have been worse. At least lawmakers seem willing no longer to give carte blanche to Business As Usual. Slowly but surely, the issues are being re-defined and the momentum of debate is shifting.

The example of MainStream Media obliviousness highlighted in our current column (“Can’t Take This – Not Another Day!”) is from the 28 December WaPo. Perhaps it should have been the January issue of Virginia Business.

The cover story is on the transportation “stalemate.” As has been pointed out concerning other Richmond New Urban Region Media, any understanding of the land use / transportation relationship seems to be beyond the institutional capacity of the current staff. The story was a regurgitation of Business As Usual.

The current issue of Virginia Business also has a “Regional Report” on Fairfax County. As we Have noted from time to time, the current borders of Fairfax County include all or part of 10 Beta Communities.

Fairfax County is not a “Region” much less a New Urban Region. It is not even a “subregion” except in the narrow sense that any territory can be called a “subregion” and so there is a Fairfax County Subregion.

A robust, consistent Vocabulary and a comprehensive Conceptual Framework is the first step to understanding human settlement patterns. This understanding is a first step in solving the mobility and access crisis as well as the affordable and accessible housing crisis.

At one point, the editorial content of Virginia Business challenged business leaders to think about the collective, long-term interests of their organizations and of the citizens of the Commonwealth instead or just repeating the chamber of commerce / Business-As-Usual line.

EMR

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine is expected to use his “state of the commonwealth speech” tonight to press for a financial solution to Virginia’s transportation woes. As Michael Hardy and Tyler Whitley explain the stakes in an article today:

The governor will pledge bipartisan cooperation, but he will challenge the lawmakers not to leave a second year in a row without addressing transportation funding,” said one administration source.

However muted the rhetoric, Democrat Kaine’s speech will sound the likely battle cry for this November’s elections for all 140 legislative seats.

By turning the transportation issue into an election rallying cry, Kaine has created an interesting — and under-reported — dynamic within the Republican Party. The first inkling I had popped up in correspondence with a General Assembly insider, who was communicating off the record, to the effect that the Senate “has to take any real deal” offered by the House of Delegates, “and they know it.”

How was that, I asked. Several soft-on-taxes Republican Senators will lose their primaries to aggressively low-tax challengers, my source responded. By contrast, for all the predictions that Democrats stand to make significant gains in the general elections, conservative Republicans in the House aren’t worried. None of them are facing primary challenges.

I don’t follow electoral politics. For details, consult Not Larry Sabato, the lead blogging source on Virginia election analysis. For purposes of this analysis, I am working off a summary provided by Virginia Free (Foundation for Research and Economic Education). Sens. Walter Stosch, R-Henrico, and Russell H. Potts, R-Winchester, face challenges from credible candidates. Sen. Emmett W. Hanger, R-Mount Solon, will be opposed by a potentially attractive but largely unknown conservative independent. By contrast, conservatives in the House are all running unopposed in their primaries. Their test will come in the general elections with the Democrats.

The races of interest:

• Walter Stosch – Joe Blackburn. Stosch enjoys enormous advantages of name recognition, incumbency and a formidable warchest, but Blackburn has a strong base of support within the district. As Virginia Free notes: “Blackburn, a Richmond attorney, had a very successful and well-attended campaign kickoff late in 2006. Meanwhile, the Henrico County GOP elected Blackburn’s choice for local chairman, Sheriff Mike Wade, essentially delivering control of the local party apparatus to Blackburn. Stosch backed the opposition, losing in his home base of Henrico County, which comprises nearly the entire senate district. Blackburn has enlisted key advisors to former Governor Jim Gilmore to assist his effort, and he claims the endorsement of VCAP, the Virginia Conservative Action PAC.”
• Russell Potts — Jill Holtzman Vogel — Mark Tate. The only thing that Russ Potts has going for him is that so many Republicans dislike him that two of them are running for his seat, thus splitting potential opposition. Tate came within 106 votes of unseating Potts in a 2003 primary — back when Potts still claimed to oppose taxes. After running as a pro-tax independent in the 2005 gubernatorial race, he has shredded any credibility with the party base. Potts has not declared whether he will run again. If he declines, he will leave the field to Tate and Vogel, both conservatives.
• Emmett Hanger – Arin Sime. Hanger enjoys clear advantages of name recognition and incumbency. His opponent, Arin Sime, describes himself as a small government conservative: “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-school choice, pro-farmer, pro-property rights, pro-small business, anti-eminent domain abuse and anti-tax hikes.” A 1997 UVa grad, he owns a software development consulting firm. Sounds like a long shot to me. In a general election, Hanger would win the Democrats’ votes, enough to tilt the election in his favor in even most conservative of districts.

It’s still relatively early in the game, and other primary opposition may surface. I would be amazed if someone did not run against Sen. John H. Chichester, R-Northumberland, who promised four years ago to oppose taxes only to turn around soon after the election and propose a tax increase so massive that it dwarfed even the hikes favored by then-Gov. Mark R. Warner. Chichester has immeasurably more gravitas than Potts and is probably unbeatable — he won the primary handily in 2003 — but his duplicity angered many rank-and-file Republicans. He’s sure to inspire at least a kamikazi run against him.

Bottom line: Kaine had better watch out. Conservative Republicans aren’t buying the mantra that general taxes must be raised to solve Virginia’s transportation problems. The biggest casualties of making transportation the big election issue of 2007 may be Kaine’s Republican fellow travelers in the state Senate. As that awareness solidifies into conventional wisdom, who knows what the Senators might do to buff their conservative, anti-tax credentials in this session?

Be afraid, be very afraid! A flood of cheap novelty cigarette lighters could turn your toddler into an unwitting arsonist!

According to fire prevention specialists with the Harrisonburg fire department, one child in Chesterfield County — or it could have been Henrico — was playing with a cigarette lighter in the shape of a toy purse, set a fire and nearly burned the house down. A child in Harrisonburg was caught clicking another toy lighter in his pants pocket. Fortunately, an alert teacher caught him before the child set his pants ablaze.

The Harrisonburg fire fighters were tending a booth in the General Assembly building this afternoon in support of legislation submitted by Del. Matthew J. Lohr, R-Harrisonburg, which would ban the sale of the lighters to anyone under the age of 18. The booth displayed some 40 or more novelty lighters. There were dolphin lighters and pig lighters, cow lighters and turtle lighters. There were lighters that masqueraded as wrist watches and tiny cell phones. There were lighters in the guise of guns and cars, beer cans and poker chips, footballs, hand grenades and jack o’ lanterns. One lighter looked like a tiny fire extinguisher.

“They look like toys,” said M.V. Messerly, a fire prevention specialist. But appearances are deceiving. Picking up a lighter in the shape of a pink pig, Messerly gave it a flick with her thumb so that flame shot out of its nostrils. “It’s been hard enough keeping children away from Bic lighters,” she said.

The cheap, novelty lighters — many of them made in China — represent a grave threat, said Wanda Willis, a lieutenant in charge of fire prevention.

Would you say they constitute “a national menace?” I asked.

Yes, she would, she said. Children can’t tell the difference between the novelty lighters and toys. Kids can take them to school, and teachers can’t tell the difference either, unless they inspect them closely.

So, stay alert, parents! That dime-store trinket in your child’s hands could pack a deadly surprise.

Through two years of blogging, I’ve been content to cover the action in the General Assembly from afar, supplementing the daily newspaper coverage with e-mail correspondence, Web research and occasional interviews. One topic that I did research in depth was the package of land-use reforms submitted by the House of Delegates leadership. Some readers were skeptical of the legislation’s merits. One anonymous blogger goaded me via his comments to attend the subcommittee meeting of Counties, Cities and Towns when the legislation would be introduced, to witness for myself what kind of greeting the bills would receive. “See you in House Room C,” he signed off.

OK, I said, I’ll go. And go I did. And when I got to the General Assembly Building just before 3 p.m., a sign on House Room C said that the hearing had been canceled. Grrr. Thanks a lot, Anonymous, that was a great tip! I’m so glad I reserved my one trek to the 2007 session for this awe-inspiring occasion!

Well, the schedule posted in the General Assembly building mentioned that the House Republican Caucus also would convene at 3 p.m. If the big dogs in the House weren’t presenting the landmark legislation to the sub-committee, I figured they might be talking about transportation, land use or something interesting in the caucus. The receptionist said the caucus should be open to the public unless it went into executive session. So, I zipped on over to the Patrick Henry Building, grabbed a seat and watched quietly as a large number of middle-aged men in dark suits and gray hair filed into the room. Eventually, I caught the eye of House Speaker William J. Howell, who, after a brief but friendly chat, informed me that the caucus was closed to the public. Double grrrr.

Bottom line for the afternoon: Your correspondent uncovered no earth-shaking revelations regarding the more momentous debates of this year’s session. But I did get button-holed by two officers with the Harrisonburg fire department eager to tell their story. An alarming increase in novelty cigarette lighters is putting innocent Virginia children at risk for setting themselves, their homes and their schools on fire. I will blog that story very shortly — and you’ll have read it here first, a world exclusive for Bacon’s Rebellion.

Some people think I’m anti-business or anti-development because I don’t buy into the political agenda of Virginia’s real estate industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m convinced that creative, entrepreneurial developers are Virginia’s best hope for creating more liveable communities. Government can make rules, but they can’t innovate. If anyone is going to figure out how to reconcile the goals of sustainable development with the goal of providing affordable, accessible housing, it has to be developers — because developers, not government, are the ones who actually actually build our communities.

That brings us to one of the more visionary developers in Virginia: John Clark, the driving force behind Haymount, a New Urbanist community along the Rappahannock River just east of Fredericksburg. Clark has dedicated half of his adult life to keeping alive his vision for Haymount. I wrote a cover story about him in 1991 for Virginia Business magazine, when Haymount was little more than a plot of farmland and a dream. After struggling for years with regulatory approvals and market conditions, Clark has finally begun building the project. He expects people to begin taking residence in 2008.

What I find especially encouraging is the fact that local environmentalists, who once opposed the community as a great project in the wrong place, have finally embraced it. Kiran Krishnamurthy at the Times-Dispatch wrote yesterday described how John Tibbett, leader of Friends of the Rappahannock, has learned to live with the 4,000-home community in rural Caroline County. “There was an evolution in our perspective toward Haymount, from being the right development in the wrong place to being a model,” he told Krishnamurthy. “Their goals fit our goals.”

While battling to keep the Haymount project alive, Clark was obsessed with incorporating the latest and greatest environmental thinking into his development. He scoured the marketplace and the literature for every green idea he can find. When Haymount finally gets built, it will become a national showcase for green development. Krishnamurthy lists some of the environmental features that Clark is planning:

Haymount will employ state-of-the-art wastewater treatment and stormwater drainage systems; feature an organic farm, garden and market; cluster the 4,000 homes together to reduce the development’s footprint; preserve two-thirds of the
1,600 acres; possibly include man-made wetlands; and equip each home with two bicycles.

Clark also said he plans to set homes back from the waterfront, preserving scenic views and using the development’s … river frontage for a park. Tippett applauds those steps.

“They could have made huge amounts of money doing waterfront lots,” Tippett said, adding he foresees Haymount and Friends of the Rappahannock one day hosting international conferences on eco-friendly development. “We can talk about low-impact development and then walk outside and see it.”

From the conversations I’ve had with Clark over the years, that description is only scratchinig the surface of what he has in mind.

Neal Peirce, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote last month how path-breaking “green” developments are popping up around the country. Prairie Crossing, a 400-home settlement, is located at the junction of two rail commuter lines 45 miles north of Chicago. Prairie Crossing is recycling old corn and soybean fields into the kind of wildflower-dotted prairie that once reigned in the plains. Habersham, a development in the low country of South Carolina, blends “porch-rich Southern architecture” with “marsh-lined water edges and great live oaks, bedecked with Spanish moss.”

Here’s the beauty of capitalism: If “green” development pays, we’ll get a lot more of it. Government can’t do it. Even environmentalist not-for-profits can’t do it. It takes visionaries like John Clark to figure out how to make it pay off. If you count the time value of holding onto the Haymount property, the early and expensive design work and literally years of Clark’s time, the project may never represent a competitive deployment of capital. You can always tell the pioneers — they’re the ones with the arrows sticking out of their backs. But if Clark can prove successful from here on out, others will learn from his experience and spread his best practices like prairie grass.

The twin thesis of my latest column, “The Oregon Solution,” is this: (a) Virginia’s gas tax has a limited life expectancy before revenues start plummeting, and (b) that the best replacement, both from a policy perspective and a political perspective, is a “road user fee” that combines a mileage-based tax with congestion pricing. I’ve made similar arguments before, but I’ve never pulled them together in one strand. And this time, I’m buttressed by the fact that the Oregon Department of Transportation has reached exactly the same conclusion! (I hate to admit it, but ODOT reached this conclusion before I did — I just didn’t know about it in my previous writing.)

The road user fee should make the Business As Usual lobby happy because it injects more money into the system for road maintenance and construction. It should make market conservatives happy because it is based upon market principles: The more miles you drive, the more you pay to maintain the roads. The more you drive in rush hour congestion, the more you pay access scarce road capacity. It should make fiscal conservatives happy because the system is far more transparent and accountable than the politically driven funding mechanisms we have now. It should make conservationists/ environmentalists happy because it would drastically reduce funding for extending roads into virgin territory for the benefit of land speculators and green-field developers. Finally, it should make citizens happy because it would do more to improve mobility and access than any competing funding scheme out there.

In sum, the Oregon “road user fee” looks like the grand compromise that could unite Virginia’s warring factions and create a sustainable, long-term funding source for transportation that does not perpetuate dysfunctional human settlement patterns. The Oregon solution does not, repeat does not, address the need for achieving Fundamental Change in land use policies and governance structures. It’s only one piece of the puzzle. But it is a very big piece.

In a second column, “When All Else Fails, Try Capitalism,” I explore how congestion pricing might look if applied to Tysons Corner. Congestion pricing would have three huge benefits: (1) it would reduce congestion to levels that maximize throughput on arteries like Rt. 7 and Rt. 123, (2) it would incentivize people to carpool, ride buses, telecommute and employ flex-time, and (3) it would provide stream of revenue to finance mobility-enhancing improvements to Tysons Corner.

For assistance, I called upon Bern Grush, founder of Skymeter, a Toronto company that wants to get into the road-user-fee business, to describe how a congestion-pricing scheme could work. Anticipating the criticism that administration of a congestion-pricing scheme would absorb the lion’s share of revenue generated by the program, I spent more time than I should have outlining Grush’s credentials. I’m not endorsing his service — I’m merely noting that technology has matured to the point where satellite-based systems can make congestion pricing cheaper and more flexible than land-based systems using more primitive technology, like those in London, Stockholm and Singapore.

Oregon’s “road user fee” system represents a huge conceptual breakthrough that could provide the foundation for a lasting transportation-funding settlement in Virginia. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.

The Virginia blogosphere has suffered grievous losses with the departure of veteran bloggers Norm Leahy and Conaway Haskins, but there is no lack of young pretenders to replace them. Here are some of the new blogs that I have come across:

Gray’s Commonwealth Gazette, a Virginia-focused blog maintained by Rick Gray, a Chesterfield County Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent.

Bored Young Professionals, maintained by two young, Democratic bloggers, with an emphasis on state politics and policy.

The Richmond Democrat, blog maintained by — surprise — a Richmond Democrat, with emphasis on state politics and policy.

The Ward View, a Republican blog maintained by the pseudonymous Ward Smythe, bills itself as “less partisan, more snark.”

(If any of these bloggers don’t like my thumb-nail descriptions, please let me know.)

Whoo, it’s been a long weekend — a “long march,” to borrow some revolutionary symbolism. I cranked out two full-length columns and edited/pasted up more than the normal number of columns. But it’s been worth it. We have some very strong content.

The Jan. 8, 2007, edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine is now online. But don’t count on the blog to remind you — subscribe for free and make sure you don’t miss an issue. Here’s this edition’s line up:

The Oregon Solution
Don’t take it on my word that mileage fees and congestion charges are the best replacement for the faltering gas tax. See what they’re saying in the land of Birkenstocks and lumberjacks.
by James A. Bacon

When All Else Fails, Try Capitalism
Community leaders in Tysons Corner are at wit’s end to find ways to reduce traffic congestion. One tool they haven’t considered is congestion pricing. Here’s how such a scheme might work.
by James A. Bacon

Transparency and Truthiness
More of one, less of the other, could help Virginia meet its transportation responsibilities in 2007.
by Doug Koelemay

Can’t Take This — Not Another Day!
Virginia politicians have finally discovered the “land use” word — they just don’t know what it means. Their so-called reforms will solve nothing.
by EM Risse

Summary of TRILO-G
Backgrounder: TRILO-G combines “The Shape of the Future”, “BRIDGES”, and “ACTION” to provide understanding of human settlement patterns, current commentary and a handbook for citizen action.
by EM Risse

Pre-K Politics
The Kaine administration has tipped its hand: It wants to make pre-K universal not because middle-class kids need it but to buy public support for an expansion of the program.
by Chris Braunlich

Our Humblest Apologies
While we’re begging forgiveness for slavery, genocide and other assorted sins of our ancestors, there are a few other offenses that Virginians should express contrition for.
by James Atticus Bowden

Grown-Up Follies
To Washington Post editorial writers, the “grown ups” support higher taxes to solve Virginia’s transportation quandary. Funny how the Post is the one throwing temper tantrums.
by Phil Rodokanakis

Minimum Wage, Everyone Pays
The minimum wage hurts small business, costs poor people jobs, and drives up costs. The winners are those hostile to competitive capitalism.
by Mike Smith

To Save the GOP, Curb Sprawl
The only way Republicans can preserve control of the General Assembly is to tame sprawl and keep taxes low. The House plan doesn’t measure up.
by Mitchell Smiley

Nice & Curious Questions
Skeletons in the Closet: Bones of Virginia
by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

A Chat with Mark Dixon, CEO of Regus Group
This is the first of three Q&As with commercial real estate visionaries exploring the changing relationship between workers and the workplace.
by James A. Bacon

I ran into Jeff Schapiro at a cocktail party last night and had a long, entertaining chat. Jeff, with whom I worked at Virginia Business magazine some 20 years ago before he joined the political staff at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, is truly one of the great conversationalists of all time. He’s smart, engaging and well informed. Our discussions ranged from payday lending to two-term governors. Jeff has keen insight into the workings of the state capitol, and he may be the savviest reporter in the capitol press corps.

That’s why it baffled me this morning to see the article that he and Michael Hardy had composed for the T-D‘s pre-General Assembly coverage. Once again, the duo highlighted the looming transportation battle as a purely fiscal duel with potential political consequences.

A fiscal fix for roads and rail loom largest for Republicans in the traffic-clogged Washington suburbs, bulwark of the new Democratic ascendancy. … Democrats are salivating over the prospect of another year of legislative gridlock over transportation, believing it could tip the Virginia Senate their way as well as increase their numbers in the House.

As Bacon’s Rebellion readers are keenly aware, the House of Delegates has proposed a three-pronged package of reforms that, whatever you think of its merits, would amount to the most far-reaching overhaul of zoning law and reallocation of state/local responsibility for roads in a half century. The House leaders are not automotons mouthing, “No new taxes.” They argue that any comprehensive plan to fix transportation requires more than money, and that land use reforms must be part of any transportation solution.

Has someone on the T-D copy desk banned the words “land use,” perhaps? The words did not appear anywhere in the Hardy-Schapiro story today. Nor did they show up in a lengthy companion piece by Olympia Meola about local government legislative priorities. (Imagine: a story about local government priorities without mentioning the movement to transform the way zoning works!) Nor did “land use” make into in a list of “other proposals” prepared by Pamela Stallsmith. I will say this at least: The T-D reporters weren’t displaying partisan bias. Not only did they act as if the House bills didn’t exist, they ignored Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s controversial proposal to give local governments more power to reject rezoning projects that would make traffic congestion worse.

The T-D legislative wrap-up touched upon tough-on-crime bills, payday lending, the Kelo decision, Chesapeake Bay clean-up, abortion, divorce, adultery, shoplifting, electric rates and even a bill to designate the ginger gold apple the official state fruit. But the bills that would transform the way local governments management growth — nada.

Contrast the T-D coverage with the Washington Post’s. Michael Shear dedicated his entire pre-General Assembly take-out to the growth management debate.

Rapid growth has become entangled in the bitter legislative debate over the state’s traffic problem. And lawmakers fear Virginians will punish anyone who refuses to vote to slow sprawl during the 2007 General Assembly session, which begins Wednesday.

… The result is a slew of legislation from Republicans and Democrats, including House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), aimed at reducing traffic congestion by better managing growth.

Now, I’ll admit that the transportation/land use issue is more all-consuming in the WaPo circulation area than it is in the T-D’s. But it’s impossible to understand the legislative dynamics of the 2007 General Assembly session without at least acknowledging that the growth management debate in Northern Virginia and, to a lesser degree, Hampton Roads is driving the transportation debate.

Here is more response to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s transportation/land use package, none of it favorable. If there’s any consolation for the Governor, it’s that his opponents are not united in their criticisms — they are focusing on different aspects of his plan.

The Home Builders Association of Virginia is blasting the Governor’s main land use reform as the equivalent of an Adequate Public Facilities requirement for roads. States the HBAV in a prepared statement:

The concept of requiring public roads and other public facilities (public schools, fire and rescue, public libraries, public water and sewer, etc.) to be in place prior to residential or commercial development is a flawed concept. It’s biggest fallacy it that it completely ignores the reality of growth and development. In the natural order of development, the construction of public roads follows residential and commercial growth. Localities neither have the vision nor the resources to build roads to nowhere, which APF growth management authority would require.

The Kaine plan would allow localities to reject rezoning projects that would overwhelm local roads with traffic. When applied elsewhere in the country, the Home Builders contend, the concept has had three dire consequences. It has:

• Restricted the supply of new housing, driving up the cost of new and existing housing,
• Worsened sprawl by forcing employees working in the inner suburbs to seek affordable housing at greater distances from the major job centers, and
• Diminished quality of life by making mothers and fathers spend more time commuting to and from work.

Kaine’s “quick fix,” concludes the Home Builder statement, “will only exacerbate the transportation crisis in Virginia through the exportation of unwanted housing to the more rural areas of the state, clogging those roads.”

Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity-Virginia have denounced the tax increase proposed by the Governor. In a prepared statement, the small-government lobbying group said:

We’re pleased that Governor Kaine has recognized the importance of locking the transportation trust fund and using the state surplus for one-time capital expenditures, solutions which Americans for Prosperity has long-supported. But taxpayers across Virginia are wondering: what part of ‘no new taxes’ did Governor Kaine not understand?

The Times-Dispatch has dredged up a perennial favorite: Does Virginia need a two-term governor? Tyler Whitley polled Virginia’s former governors and found them to be divided on the point — and not along party lines.

Former Govs. Charles Robb and George Allen prefer the status quo. Former Govs. Gerald Baliles and Linwood Holton favor a single, six-year term for governor. And former Govs. L. Douglas Wilder, Jim Gilmore and Mark R. Warner like two, four-year terms.

Here’s what would have helped the story immeasurably: Give us examples of how a six-year or two-term governorship could have helped. What policy initiatives or reforms did Jim Gilmore or Mark Warner leave undone as a result of having departed after four years? Conversely, it would have helped to cite examples of where a governor was hopeless mucking things up and people were saying, “Thank God we got rid of that idiot after only four years — it would have been a disaster if we’d been stuck with him for six.”