Bacon's Rebellion

Christina Nuckols at the Virginian-Pilot has described the role of business lobbies — in particular, groups representing Realtors, insurance companies, gasoline retailers and the auto dealers — in defeating General Assembly efforts to raise taxes for transportation. All of these groups felt threatened by one plan or another to stick them with the tab for higher transportation spending.

As Nuckols sums up the situation: “Every new idea that emerged for financing roads mobilized a new business group that felt it was being targeted.”

Kudos to Nuckols for digging deeper than the Axis of Taxes spin on the special section, parroted by so many in the Mainstream Media, that blamed obstructionist ideologues in the House of Delegates for the failure to reach an agreement. If only she had taken her inquiry one step further to observe that the Axis of Taxes legislative strategy was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

The problem with the tax-raising schemes is that none of them established a rational nexus between those being taxed and those who would benefit from the construction of new roads and rail projects. Of course, those who were targeted for taxes were going to lobby as if their lives depended upon it.

Virginia’s transportation system clearly needs more revenue. The trouble is, lawmakers steadfastly refuse, for fear of alienating voters, to raise the gasoline tax. I can conclude only that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and others in the Axis of Taxes made a political calculation that it would be easier to raise $1 billion through a mish-mash of narrowly targeted taxes than through a tax that established a direct connection between miles driven and taxes paid. I have greater faith in the voters: I think they would be willing to raise taxes on themselves as long as they were assured the funds weren’t going to be spent on politically driven projects that benefited mainly road builders, land speculators and politicians.

I believe that voters could be persuaded to support the following:

1. Maintenance. Peg the gasoline tax to the cost of maintaining the state road network. If costs go higher, as many fear it will, the tax goes higher. If efficient VDOT management or devolution to localities can constrain the rise in maintenance costs, then taxes will stay stable. In either case, voters can understand — and accept — the connection between what they’re paying and what they’re getting. (Eventually, the gasoline tax should give way to a Vehicle Miles Driven tax, adjusted for the weight of the vehicle.)
2. Congestion Mitigation. Use congestion pricing to address the issue of road “scarcity” during periods of peak demand. Promise voters that congestion revenues will be plowed back into congestion-mitigation investments in the same transportation corridor/district.
3. Economic development. Use the General Fund to pay for economic development projects like U.S. 460, the Coalfield Expressway, U.S. 58, Interstate 73. Because such projects constitute an inter-regional transfer of wealth, they should compete with other priorities in the political bargaining process — not put on transportation funding auto pilot. Tap the state’s AAA bond rating to issue long-term bonds as necessary.

(Hat tip to Tom McCormick for pointing me to the Nuckols article.)

Update: It’s noteworthy that the Daily Press also has editorialized in favor of the gas tax. But there’s a world of difference between the DP‘s thinking and mine. To the DP, higher gas taxes are the quickest, easiest way to raise large amounts of revenue in order to Build More Stuff. To my way of thinking, a gas tax (to be supplanted eventually by a Vehicle Miles Driven tax) is critical to establishing a rational nexus between payers of the tax and beneficiaries of transportation improvements — a nexus that changes the economic calculation of driving and incentivizes motorists to curtail demand. Additionally, while raising more money (to Build More Stuff) is an end in itself to the Axis of Taxes, it is, to my mind, only one of many fundamental changes we must make.

As the P.R. war heats up in Loudoun County over the future of the Dulles South district, the Piedmont Environmental Council has been a leading voice opposing the granting of greater density. According to the Loudoun Times-Mirror, Supervisor Steve Snow, R-Dulles, considers the PEC a malign influence:

“[PEC members] are insidious. They are everywhere,” said [Snow] at the Oct. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting. “They are trying to take over local and state government to try and get their will done for environmental extremism, and I think we have to fight against it.”

Newspapers ads, paid for by the pro-growth group the Right Growth Policy Institute, detail a complex chain of influence that reaches from the PEC all the way up to the governor’s office in Richmond. Characterizing the PEC as the “hunt-country elite,” the ads claim the organization is using its influence to “stop economic development, job growth and private investment in new infrastructure.”

It is true that the PEC has worked its way into the inner sanctum of power in Richmond for the first time ever. As the Times-Mirror recounts:

Scott Kasprowicz, a former PEC board member who donated more than $140,000 to the Kaine for Governor campaign, was named Deputy Secretary of Transportation. More recently, Peter Schwartz, who was vice-chair of the PEC and gave more than
$31,500 to Kaine, is a new appointment to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The CTB, which Kasprowicz serves on as well, directs state funding to individual road projects throughout the state.

The PEC also funds Bacon’s Rebellion’s Road to Ruin project, so I may be hopelessly “conflicted” when I say this, but… The charges are hystericallly overblown.

First, the “influence” of the PEC in the Governor’s Office is more than offset by the heft of Business As Usual interests such as developers, home builders, construction firms, engineernig firms and all the rest. As an indicator of who is winning the tug of war, the Governor abandoned his commitment to allow localities to restrict rezonings that would negatively impact the local transportation network — the top legislative priority of the PEC and other conservationists. Instead, Kaine committed his political capital to raising taxes for transportation. Just what the PEC and other conservationists have been longing for: New arterials and bypasses to open up the countryside to development. Yeah, right.

Second, and more germane, the PEC is asking the tough questions that few others willing to ask: What are the fiscal and transportation impacts of growth? Does it make sense for growth in the metropolitan Washington area to push ever outward — even when it leaves vast tracts of vacant and underutilized land closer to the metropolitan core? Is it not possible to devise human settlement patterns that are more efficient than the scattered, disconnected, low-density development that has characterized most growth for the past 50 years? These are reasonable questions.

If asking those questions makes the PEC environmental extremists, I guess that makes me an environmental extremist…. perhaps the most conservative “environmental extremist” on the planet.

If 2006 was the Kaine administration’s “year of transportation,” 2007 could be shaping up as the “year of health care.” Last week, Gov. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced appointments to the Commission on Health Reform. The commission has two top priorities: (1) providing insurance coverage to the more than one million Virginians who lack it, and (2) addressing the growing shortages of health professionals across all disciplines.

According to the Governor’s press release: The Commission is tasked with identifying and implementing national best practices at the state level with emphasis on access, quality, and safety of care.

Talk about a blue-ribbon panel! Marilynn Tavenner, the commission chair, knows a thing or two about health care: She was CEO of HCA’s Richmond-area operations. Other senior health care excecutives representing a broad cross spectrum of the industry will serve with her. Kaine also has taken care to seed the commission with Republican lawmakers as well as his fellow Democrats.

There’s one name missing from the list that would give the commission even more credibility in my book: Ramesh Shukla. A professor of health care administration at Virginia Commonwealth University, Shukla is arguably the state’s leading expert on hospital productivity. If the Governor is looking for “win-win” solutions, as Secretary of Technology Aneesh Chopra indicated he was in an interview a half year ago, there’s no greater win-win than boosting the productivity and efficiency of the system.

Health care, which consitutes nearly one-sixth of the state GDP, is so huge, so cumbersome, regulated at so many levels, and so guarded by vested interests, that I don’t have high hopes that the commission will agree upon anything more than window dressing. But we have to try. As with transportation, we cannot long afford Business As Usual.

Sounds like Virginia’s mental health system is way past due for an overhaul. Reports Bill McKelway with the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Thirty years after a nationwide push to end the warehousing of mentally ill people in state hospitals, Virginia still faces a daunting task. Virginia is spending more money per capita than any other state on institutional care, its jails are teeming with mentally ill criminals, and community-based systems of care are lacking in all regions of the commonwealth.

The problem entails more than money. According to McKelway, Chief Justice Leroy R. Hassell Sr. said “civil commitment procedures, outmoded state laws that require findings of dangerousness, and shortcomings in community-based care are affecting every branch of government.”

The average caseload of a caseworker in Virginia is twice the national average. Patients wait more than a month on average to see a psychiatrist. The state cannot adequately track the care patients receive, much less its sucess or failure rate. And at any given time, about one-sixth of the 25,000 inmates of state jails suffer from mental illness.

In sum, the mentally ill aren’t getting the treatment they require, and Virginians are paying for housing more than necessary in institutions and jails. It strikes me that this is a case where improved services can be paid for, at least in part, through economic efficiencies.

(Photo credit of Eastern State Mental Hospital in Williamsburg, circa 1942: PBS.)

Talk about a theoretical exercise! The Roanoke Times reports:

Plans for Interstate 73 cleared a major hurdle this week when a group of localities, government agencies and an advocacy group agreed to its general path from Roanoke to North Carolina. The controversial road project has been under discussion for 16 years already, and Thursday no one could predict how much longer it will take before construction money can be found and builders can begin work.

In 2001, the Virginia Department of Transportation estimated the cost at $1.3 billion, but that estimate is way outdated. While the federal government would pay for most of the project, Virginia apparently has to pony up only 20 percent of the cost. Just add it to the stack of wished-for projects that would be economically justified only when someone else pays for it.

In theory, an Interstate would boost the economies of Martinsville and Roanoke. But I’d like answers to a couple of questions. (1) What’s the economic Return on Investment analysis? (2) Could the funds generate a higher return on investment if spent in some other way? When all the boosters like up in favor of a big highway project, no one ever seems to ask those questions.

Ed Risse uses a term “RHTC” as short-hand for a broad swath of Americans he describes as “Running as Hard as they Can” — the vast middle class between the underclass and the winners in the “winner take all” globally competitive economy. Ed contends that dysfunctional human settlement patterns explain why they are running so hard. His analysis gains support from a new report by the Center for Housing Policy, “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families.”

In the nation’s 28 largest metropolitan areas, working family households earning between $20,000 and $50,000 a year are spending 58 percent of their income (60 percent in the Washington metro area) just on housing and transportation. The housing bubble has garnered ample attention for the housing part of the equation. Less widely recognized is that working families spend just as much of their income on transportation. (See the data comparing metro areas.)

And the problem is intensifying. While incomes rose 10.3 percent between 2000 and 2005, transportation costs rose 13.4 percent and housing costs 15.4 percent.

Of particular interest to the ongoing discussions on this blog is the fact that housing and transportation costs are intimately entwined. The high cost of housing in the metropolitan core, where most of the jobs are, forces working class families to live farther out — in effect trading their time and transportation costs in exchange for lower mortgage payments. What many families fail to understand is that when they add up the diffuse costs of transportation — auto ownership, maintenance, taxes, insurance, gasoline, etc. — they are not only sacrificing their time but losing money.

(One of the goals of Ed’s Property Dynamics project is to educate consumers about these and other costs related to human settlement patterns: dispelling prevalent myths and enabling people to make more rational economic decisions about where to live.)

The authors also identify community impacts:

As more and more working families commute to distant job centers from their homes, clogged and congested roads become the norm in surrounding communities. A growing number of communities are identifying the lack of
affordable housing and the increase in commute times and traffic congestion as priority issues. But they haven’t always linked these two sets of issues…

Clearly, there is a huge supply-demand imbalance of housing in Northern Virginia and, to a lesser extent, Virginia’s other metro areas. Developers are building high-end housing, but little that working families can afford. Does that mean developers are “greedy” and “heartless”? No, it suggests that there is an acute shortage of developable land in the metropolitan core — much of it attributable to local government restrictions on development and re-development. Given the scarcity of vacant land and the difficulty of re-developing underutilized land at higher densities, developers will serve the most profitable segment of the market — the high end — first.

The study recommends:

• Infill development “that expands the supply of affordable housing in inner city and older suburban neighborhoods that have good access to traditional job centers.”
• Development of affordable housing “near transportation hubs and suburban employment centers.
• Reliable transit for suburb-to-suburb commuting, and for transporting workers from the outer suburbs to the metropolitan core.
• Car sharing, to reduce the cost of car ownership for those lacking access to transit.

Jim Bacon mentioned the DP story, “Rift between city, state threatens Fort Monroe plans’ (Daily Press October 10, 2006) . The heart of the issue is who will be in charge of planning and managing the transition of Ft Monroe to other uses.

The Hampton City Council wants to be in charge. But, Ft. Monroe was never part of Hampton. So, the land should revert to the Commonwealth – the original owner.

The City has a plan that, at first glance, looks like a nice vision. But, there is another vision held by the Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (www.CFMNP.org).

Both visions point to the Presidio of San Francisco, California as the model for how to proceed.

But, the CFMNP argue “under the BRAC process applicable to closing military bases, Hampton has been designated the Local Redevelopment Authority by the Pentagon, and in turn Hampton has created a Federal Area Development Authority of seven Hampton residents to recommend to Hampton City Council a Fort Monroe reuse plan. Such plan would eventually be forwarded to the governor of Virginia for his review and ultimately to the federal government for its approval. However, this process is concurrent with completing other legally required processes, under the Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, both of which require that all feasible alternatives for the Fort be considered. Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park will (and we believe citizens should) participate in all these processes, but none of these procedures preclude individual citizens and groups from directly calling on Congress, the governor, state legislators, and other political leaders to support a national park at Fort Monroe.”

Sen. (R-sorta) Marty Williams supports handing Ft. Monroe over to Hampton.

Del. (R) Tom Gear is working with the CFMNP organization.

Marty and the Hampton City Council are allies in advocating increasing our taxes for transportation, establishing unelected, unaccountable, undivided powerful Regional Governments, etc.

Tom is against them. Furthermore, as a former Hampton City Council member, Tom opposed Hampton’s tax and spend schemes for 20 years. Hampton has a litany of big dollar projects, poorly managed and questionably awarded. This Hampton City Council bought new chairs for themselves – at about $7k a pieces. This City Council inappropriately fired the City Manager and had to settle a $5m lawsuit. The words ‘stewards of the public trust’ are never used in the same sentence with these elected officials.

Since, the voters of Hampton put these folks in office, they deserve the city government and schools they get. But, it’s unreasonable to give a national treasure and region gemstone over to these politicians and punish the rest of Tidewater and the Commonwealth.

Questions about the other vision? Contact Steven T. Corneliussen at [email protected]

The Macerich Corporation laid out its vision last week to the Fairfax County Planning Commission for transforming Tysons Corner into a walkable community built around high-rises and condos near a proposed Metro station. The expansion, which Macerich has been planning since 2004, would change Tysons Corner Center into a “downtown” of 3.5 million square feet, comparable to Reston Town Center, reports the Times Community newspapers.

The main concern was one familiar to readers of this blog: What would be the impact of the increased density upon traffic congestion? Tysons Corner is already a nightmare. Wouldn’t more offices, more people and more cars just make it worse?

Writes Monty Tayloe:

Macerich’s proposal would attack the traffic problem by improving and widening several roads in the vicinity of the shopping mall, including routes 7 and 123, constructing additional facilities for Metro and shuttle buses, and emphasizing pedestrian movement throughout the area. Macerich has also agreed to pay large financial penalties if specific transportation goals are not met.

Here’s the way I see it. Macerich will be rolling out its project in four phases. If it fails to deliver on its promises, and if gridlock only intensifies, it will lose its shirt. Who will want to lease office space or buy a condo constipated with congestion? Throw in the penalties for failing to meet county transportation goals, and Macerich has every incentive to deliver the goods.

Here’s the question that local homeowners — and our friend TooManyTaxes — are not asking. What’s the alternative? Are things going to get any better under the status quo?

If growth doesn’t go into Tysons Corner, where will it go? Will that growth take the form of even more scattered, disonnected, low-density development that is plaguing communities across the region? Will people be forced to live farther out? Will they be driving greater distances, clogging ever more miles of arterial Interstate, and congesting the arterials to reach the jobs being created in Tysons?

I don’t know enough to comment upon the specifics of the Macerich proposal. All I’m saying is that the reasons for opposing the proposal don’t add up.

(Rendering credit: Macerich Corporation.)

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine is making a new sales pitch to raise taxes for transportation: Keeping Virginia competitive in a global economy. As the Associated Press reports from Roanoke:

Virginia can thrive in the 21st century’s global marketplace with an international airport and a major port but will falter if it cannot provide road and rail access to both, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Tuesday. …

The 27 million passenger visits a year at Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia could be increased to 50 million, Kaine said, but more roads and rail access are needed in the traffic-clogged region. The same is true of Hampton Roads, he said, where the port could become the busiest in the nation with dredging to accommodate even bigger ships. “Are we going to be winners, or are we going to leave these great assets withering and dying?” he said.

Kaine raises a legitimate point: Virginia must bend every effort to maintain its economic competitiveness. That’s always been the dominant theme of Bacon’s Rebellion. So, let’s give the Governor the benefit of the doubt and examine his proposal to raise taxes by $1 billion a year to build the kinds of transportation projects he says will do the trick.

If someone gave you $1 billion a year to increase competitiveness, dear reader, would you spend it all on roads? Or would you spend some of it on education? Or R&D? Or recruiting and building industry clusters? Or, here’s a thought… on cutting taxes?

The problem is that there is no way to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing proposals in the absence of a Return on Investment analysis. What is the ROI on upgrading U.S. 460 between Petersburg and Suffolk? No one has calculated such a number, but it apparently is not very high. We know this because three competing proposals from the private sector all say that tolls alone cannot pay for the project. If the Virginia ports, trucking companies, shippers of manufactured goods and the residents of Hampton Roads are not willing to pay tolls sufficient to finance the project, why should the Commonwealth tax its citizens?

Because the $1 billion project would create jobs? So would $1 billion spent in other ways.

Because a more free-flowing port would make warehousing/distribution and manufacturing in Southside more competitive? Fine, that’s a reasonable argument. But let’s see the spreadsheet. How many facilities would Virginia attract with an upgraded U.S. 460 vs. the number we could attract with the old U.S. 460? How does that compare to economic activity that would be generated by letting taxpayers keep the money in their pockets?

Economic development is a worthy cause — perhaps the most worthy of causes. But it does not come from the missallocation of investment capital by the political process, subject as it is to manipulation by special interests.

With an executive order, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has created the Transportation Accountability Commission to ensure that Commonwealth’s transportation agencies “deliver maximum value for taxpayers, implement rigorous management standards, adhere to appropriate free market principles, and promote wise investments.”

States a press release from the Governor’s office:

“While significant additional public and private investments still are needed to upgrade our transportation system, it is critical that current funding is used in the most efficient and effective manner possible,” said Governor Kaine. “This commission also will consider ‘best practices’ and develop performance measures to further improve public accountability of our transportation agencies and professionals.”

The commission also will recommend “quantifiable outcome measures” for aligning transportation and land use planning.

Norfolk Southern Corporation Senior Vice President James A. Squires has agreed to serve as chairman of the Commission, which will be composed of 15 members, including three cabinet members, local government leaders, legislators, business leaders, and community leaders.

This sounds like a positive development. Cynics might suggest that the Governor is trying to co-opt the House Republican Caucus on the issue of structural reform. So what? The Governor is helping legitimize issues — VDOT and land use reform — that have gone unrecognized for too long.

Last Friday, Jim Bacon posted an item on Albemarle County’s proposed transfer of “development” rights program that generated several interesting responses. In the third comment Larry Gross asked what we thought of TDRs. We are getting behinder and behinder but have not written on this topic recently and were trying to find time for a short post. Then along comes C. P. Zilliacus.

Zilliacus nailed the topic. Montgomery County, MD, the nation-states most widely heralded example of TDRs, is a strategic flop.

The TDR sending area has become a McMansion / Hobby Farm zone. This low density urban area has raised the cost of housing in the Maryland portion of the National Capital Subregion. It has also made it harder to get from jobs in the Core of the Subregion to scattered aggomerations of dwellings that approach affordability in Frederick, Washington and Carroll Counties and in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

The TDR receiving areas are no different than other badly conceived urban agglomerations.

Unless there is a sound regional strategy to create settlement patterns in balance with mobility facilities and is a strategy that recognizes the need for a Clear Edge between the Urbanside and the Countryside, the result is unsustainable.

As noted in The Shape of the Future, TDRs (and the other tactics in the generic class we call Transfers of Property Rights or TPRs) are just tools. In the hands of the current governance structure and with a vacuum of rational regional resource allocation, TPRs are blunt instruments that cause more damage than good.

That is true for most of the “land use control” tools as noted in “The Role of Municipal Planning in Creating Dysfunctional Human Settlement Patterns” at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com.

EMR

Sometimes it’s hard not to gloat. In August, Forbes magazine conferred upon Virginia the top business climate among the 50 states. (See “Eat My Dust, Texas.”) Now comes a ranking of another kind: If Americans could live in any state they’d choose, they’d pick Virginia No. 2 in the country, trailing only North Carolina.

So says a first-of-its-kind global public opinion poll called the Anholt State Brands Index, based on the responses of 9,000 U.S. citizens. Both states scored in the top 10 for all major categories: climate, physical attractiveness, leisure amenities, ease of finding employment, commercial opportunity, and education.

Said author Simon Anholt: “It is well known that even highly rational decisions – such as major investments and business relocations – are partly driven by so-called ‘soft’ factors, and measuring the brand images of states is an excellent way of getting a handle on these factors. … Brand image is critically important to the prosperity of all communities.”

In a poll of 13,000 foreigners, Virginia ranked behind the mega-brands like California, Florida, Hawaii and New York, but still scored a respectable 7th place. But what do a bunch of foreigners know? Speaking of North Carolina and Virginia, Anholt said: “Their high domestic ranking is presumably all down to local knowledge of the real economic situation of the states, whereas the foreigners are largely guessing.” (Read the press release. Read the report.)

This is heartening news. We Virginians know we have a good business climate. And most of us love living here, too. But we’re biased. On the other hand, Anholt and 9,000 other Americans are not. They love us! They really love us!

If global warming leads to a melting of the polar icecaps and a rise in sea levels, it looks like the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge is toast. According to a report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife, Chincoteague ranks among the ten most endangered national wildlife refuges in the United States. States the report:

Chincoteague NWR is one of the top five resting and feeding spots for migratory birds east of the Rocky Mountains. It is part of the United Nations’ World Biosphere Preserve network and is designated an International Shorebird Reserve. More than 300 species of birds, a variety of turtles, otters, muskrats, deer and endangered Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrels and piping plovers make their home on the refuge.

And let us not forget the wild ponies!

I’m not convinced that the alarmist global warming scenarios will play out, but the prospect of having Chincoteague inundated does have a way of concentrating the mind.

(Photo credit: Il Porto del Cavallo.)

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority website, the Metro generated $617 million in revenue in fiscal 2006, spent $1,049 million and required an operating subsidy of $432 million. Those raw numbers understate the real cost of operating the system, however. If Metro is allowing the system to depreciate, it is generating bigger losses than the raw operating numbers let on.

The Washington Post provides an example of the slow-motion depreciation that appears to be taking place. Citing the “escalating” cost of repairs, Metro management is looking at replacing 23 escalators with conventional stairs at 15 stations. Writes Lena H. Sun:

Nonfunctioning escalators trigger more complaints from Metro customers than almost any other problem. Metro has so many escalators because the subway was built so deep beneath swampy Washington. In some places, stairs aren’t an option because all available space is devoted to escalators.

Metro, with 86 stations and average weekday ridership of about 720,000, has 588 escalators and 267 elevators. In contrast, the London Underground, which serves 275 stations and carries more than 3 million passengers a day, has 412 escalators and 112 elevators.

At any given moment, 40 to 45 of Metro’s escalators and about six elevators are typically broken or scheduled for maintenance.

The Metro is a critical transportation asset for the Washington Metro area. There may be a case for expanding the system to Dulles airport and other locations in Virginia. But Virginians will want to be assured that the system isn’t slowly disintegrating before signing up for billions in construction charges and multi-millions in ongoing maintenance costs.

(Photo credit: Answers.com.)

The Daily Press is reporting that a rift is developing between local and state officials on how to develop Fort Monroe. The state has a big say-so because half the property reverts to the state when the U.S. Army shuts down its operations there in 2011. The controversy arises from disagreements in the Memorandum of Understanding that would set the guidelines and goals of the city-state partnership.

Let’s hope they get it sorted out. The City of Hampton is defining a compelling vision for the property. Essentials include:

• Preservation of historic structures.
• Expansion of the marina, opening of the beach and development of a waterfront esplanade. (I confess, I had to look up “esplanade” in a dictionary: It’s a stretch of paved or grassy ground designed for walking along a shore.)
• Mixed land uses and building types.
• Blending of culture, commerce, workplaces, housing, tourism and lodging.

In sum, the vision is to create an urban gem with a distinct sense of historical and geographic place. The re-developed Fort Monroe, I would expect, will be capable of sustaining some of the highest per-square-foot property values in Hampton Roads.

This is a case where federal divestment of an antiquated military facility will result in an enormous plus for the community.

(Hat tip to Kevin Grierson for pointing me to the Hampton presentation.)