• Kaine Appoints Dominion Counsel to SCC Judgeship

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has appointed James C. Dimitri, the McGuire Woods attorney who has led Dominion Virginia Power legal team bidding to build a high-voltage transmission line through Virginia’s horse country, to the State Corporation Commission.

    In making the announcement, Kaine noted that Dimitri had served as senior counsel at the SCC between 1994 and 1996, and has represented numerous clients before the SCC and other regulatory agencies. The governor’s press release did not specifically mention his role in representing Dominion.

    “Jimmy Dimitri has worked on utility matters before the SCC for more than 25 years,” Kaine said. “His representation of consumers, manufacturers, utilities, the Commonwealth and the commission itself has given him a complete understanding of all the challenging and important issues before the SCC.”

    The appointment has drawn fire from Rep. Frank Wolf, R-10, many of whose constituents oppose the proposed construction of a high-voltage transmission line through the horse country of the northern piedmont. Dimitri is the lead attorney representing Dominion Virginia Power in the highly controversial bid. โ€œVirginia deserves an impartial SCC that will act in the consumer interest,โ€ Wolf wrote in a public letter to Kaine.

    Normally, the General Assembly appoints the SCC judges, reports the Northern Virginia Daily. But the legislature has wrangled for three sessions over a replacement for Judge Theodore V. Morrison, Jr., forfeiting the decision to Kaine.

    Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey defended the appointment, noting that in addition to his work for Dominion and the attorney general’s office, he has also been counsel to the commission and the Virginia Poverty Law Center — often opposing utilities like Dominion. Said Hickey: “The fact is that Mr. Dimitri is unique in that he has the broadest perspective on the work of the State Corporation Commission that an individual could have.”

    Bacon’s bottom line: I’m not totally buying Hickey’s argument. In his capacity as a defender of consumer interests, Dimitri may have opposed Dominion on issues like rates. But that’s a far cry from saying that he’s neutral on the many environmental issues that come before the SCC. The environmentalists/conservationist community is one key constituency that it appears Dimitri has never represented and, indeed, has actively opposed.

    I haven’t received any e-mail alerts from my usual conservationist sources and I can’t find any reaction to the appointment on the Piedmont Environmental Council website, however, so it’ s possible that Dimitri is held in such high regard by everyone whose path he has crossed that he has sparked little opposition.

    On the other hand, maybe the PEC and other environmentalists are so stunned by the appointment that they haven’t collected their wits enough to respond. Alternatively, even if they are dismayed, they may not want to alienate Dimitri.

    Wolf is pretty tight with the PEC, so it’s conceivable that he represents a back-channel line of communication. But then again, maybe not. Wolf also mentioned Dimitri’s role in representing the Toll Road Investors Partnership in seeking rate increases for the Dulles Greenway. Hard to tell.

    Environmentalists and conservationists have had a love/hate relationship with Gov. Kaine. I would be surprised if this appointment doesn’t nudge the needle closer to the hate side of the meter.


  • Dominion Seeks Loan Guarantees for Nukes

    Dominion Virginia Power has submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Energy for a loan guarantee to help finance construction of a third nuclear reactor at the North Anna Power Station. The DOE loan guarantee program was established by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 to assist companies pursuing the licensing of new nuclear units to finance the first wave of new commercial reactors in the United States.

    If a loan applicant’s project is selected under this program, the federal government could guarantee all of the project’s debt so long as it does not represent more than 80 percent of the project’s qualified construction costs. Congress has appropriated $18.5 billion to support the nuclear loan guarantee program.

    “Today’s filing is another important step in the process we began more than seven years ago to position ourselves to be among the first to get a license for a new nuclear unit,” said Mark F. McGettrick, CEO of Dominion Generation.

    Dominion is on track to become the first power company in three decades to construct a nuclear power generator in the United States. It would utilize novel technology known as Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, developed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Dominion anticipates that the project will incur $500 million on regulatory, engineering and design costs before construction even begins. That up-front cost will be split between Dominion, GE-Hitachi and the Department of Energy. Total project costs will run into the billions of dollars. (Cross-posted from R’Biz.)

    Bacon’s bottom line: Once again, we have an example of how embroiled government is in the energy economy. Dominion’s nuke will benefit from at least two government programs: (1) support for the up-front engineering/design costs, and (2) loan guarantees that will lower the cost of capital. No wonder environmentalists feel justified in demanding comparable tax breaks for their preferred energy sources, such as wind, solar and biomass.

    I fully support nuclear power — as long as it incorporates the full environmental costs of its technology and meets a market test for economic efficiency.

    The problem is that there are so many subsidies, loan guarantees, tax breaks and the like that investments in energy resources are determined as much by government incentives as by underlying economics. Instead of investing in new technology, many businesses will invest in rent seeking (lobbying, campaign contributions, Boone Pickens-style advertising campaigns). It is frightening to contemplate how many tens of billions of dollars the United States will squander on ill-considered schemes like the now-discredited ethanol subsidies.

    And we think OPEC and/or the oil companies are the enemy?


  • The Budget Debate Framed: Spending Cuts, No Tax Increases

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine didn’t offer much new data in his presentation Monday to Virginia’s House and Senate money committees about Virginia’s deteriorating fiscal picture, but he did have one thing to say that will shape how the budget debate unfolds: He won’t ask to increase any General Fund taxes.

    “We will continue to manage through the national economic decline without increasing the general-fund tax burden on Virginia residents,” Kaine said, as quoted by the Times-Dispatch.

    Kaine’s unwillingness to try raising General Fund taxes comes in marked contrast to his effort, defeated earlier this summer, to jack up taxes to pay for transportation projects. As a consequence, the debate over how to respond to a revenue shortfall that could exceed $1 billion in the current, two-year budget, will be framed around which programs to cut. Kaine offered few specifics, but did say that programs spared in previous cost-cutting rounds, such as K-12 education, may not escape unscathed.

    The two-year budget passed earlier this year included 2.2 percent increase in General Fund spending for fiscal 2009 and another 6.8 percent increase in fiscal 2010. But revenues are falling short of even those modest expectations for this year, and there is little optimism that 2009 will shape up much better.

    Republicans are engaging in a round of “I told you so.” Republicans did indeed warn earlier this year that revenues were slowing and that Kaine’s attempt to create new spending programs, such as the pre-school initiative, were ill advised. But that line of logic will take them only so far. After raising a much-justified ruckus early in the year, they did not dispute updated economic forecasts made in February, and they passed Kaine’s revised budget.

    Of greater interest to me is the analysis of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Lacey E. Putney, I-Bedford, who framed today’s fiscal crisis in the context of the budgetary debate that has raged since the last economic downturn:

    “In 2004, then-Gov. [Mark R.] Warner stated that the tax increase approved by the General Assembly would align our longer-term revenue and spending requirements. Clearly, this did not work. The fact that state spending continues to grow faster than revenue growth is not indicative of the need for more revenue, rather the need for spending reform.”

    I quite agree: The immediate problem is a revenue shortfall resulting from an economic slowdown (or outright recession), but long-term the problem has been increases in state spending that have significantly outpaced growth in inflation and population.

    Virginia Democrats seem to be resigned to an ever-expanding state budget. Republicans, to their credit, are not. But the Elephant Clan has yet to (a) say which core services they are willing to cut, (b) outline strategies for delivering those services more efficiently, or (c) articulate market-based alternatives to government programs.


  • Will Georgia Spark a Russian Arms Race?

    Russiaโ€™s incursion into Georgia is one of the most dangerous turning points in recent years. In my view, it could lead to far more serious consequences for the U.S. than anything like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    President George Bush and his successor must make it absolutely plain to Vladimir Putin that such aggression wonโ€™t be tolerated. Negotiations are, of course, in order, but my view as a long-time Russia-watcher is that we must play the threat-of-force card since it seems to be the only thing some of them understand.

    That said, I found it especially interesting just how obsolete Russian weapons were during the conflict.

    First, some caveats. I know this is supposed to be a Virginia blog and that some fellow bloggers will take my head off for straying off topic. Virginia, however, is where the Pentagon and the CIA are located, plus many military and naval bases. Also, Virginia is the No.2 defense industry state. What happens next is of utmost importance to the Old Dominion.

    Besides noting the vigor and recklessness of the Russian incursion, some observers have picked up that the Russia strikes in the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and in Georgia proper raise big questions about their military equipment. That intrigues me since the Soviet/Russian defense industry was one thing I paid a lot of attention do when I was a BusinessWeek correspondent in Moscow from 1986-1989 and again from 1993 to 1996.

    Aircraft, tanks and assault rifles were some of the few products they seemed to make well. I saw them up close and personal on several occasions, including the Uzbek border where I watched Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989. Four years later, much of the fighting during an anti-Yeltsin coup in Moscow happened just outside my office and apartment where my wife and two children huddled in a bathtub. Iโ€™ve waited at armed checkpoints in Azerbaijan and although I was never in Chechnya, I knew a lot of people who were.

    On a lighter note, I was once invited to a weapons demonstration by Russian export companies in the city of Vladimir. After a lunch of vodka and heavy appetizers, we went to exhibits where pretty young Russian models displayed mortar tubes and rocket propelled grenades along with lots of leg and cleavage. Then we went out to a firing range and were allowed to shoot any weapon we wanted, including machine guns, despite our somewhat inebriated state. I chose an evil-looking submachine gun, called a โ€œbez-shumโ€ (without noise) because it had a long silencer on its barrel. It made flitting sounds as I squeezed the trigger.

    Yet, according to observers such as the Moscow Times, Russian weaponery showed its age in Georgia. The tanks were old T-72s produced in the 1970s to counter NATO armor on the plains of Western Europe. The primary aircraft were close-support Sukhoi-25s, dubbed โ€œFrogfootโ€ by NATO, which were first used 25 years ago in Afghanistan.

    Georgia fielded some of the same weapons, but, according to the Moscow Times, they had been upgraded with night-vision capabilities, unlike the Russian ones. Presumably a bit of the technical upgrades came with help from U.S. and Israeli advisors in Georgia. The Georgians had help with electronic warfare and general training as well, presumably from the same Israeli and U.S. sources. โ€œThe Russian forces had to operate in an environment of technically inferiority,โ€ the Moscow Times quoted Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies as saying.

    Despite the Georgianโ€™s technical superiority, however, Russia prevailed through brute strength of numbers. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili made a bad move by provoking the fight by sending 7,500 Georgia troops into the contested and heavily-Russian province of South Ossetia that has been fought over since the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and Georgia became independent. Unfortunately for the Georgians, the initiative failed and the Russians responded in force.

    Despite Russiaโ€™s victory, the conflict revealed shortcomings in Russian tactics along with the aforementioned ones in weaponery. For example, Russian air forces could not prevent the shelling of a convoy and the wounding of a top commander, despite Georgia’s smaller forces, the Moscow Times says.

    Old guns and tanks result, of course, from the economic mayhem that befell the Soviet Union after the 1991 breakup. The military and civilian economies had been merged in ways hard to imagine in the West. But Russia is now awash in oil money. One wonders if the poor showing in Georgia and Putinโ€™s belligerence will spark a major arms buildup in Russia, not to mention more aggressive moves in spots around Russia’s border. If so, the U.S., and by extension, Virginia, had better be ready.

    Peter Galuszka


  • Two Jim Bacons, Two Huge Boobs

    There are a surprising number of “Jim Bacons” in the world. Besides me, there is my father, of course. There is the Hollywood reporter, now retired, who went by the byline of James Bacon. There also was the deceased premier of the Australian state of Tasmania. And last but not least, there is my West Coast alter ego, the proprietor of Mighty Big Media.

    The “other” Jim Bacon is politically conscious, too, although his leanings may be harder to classify than mine. In a pandering effort to “titillate” my readers during the summer doldrums, I’m posting one of his political statements on Bacon’s Rebellion. You’ll probably find “Two Huge Boobs” to be more edifying than anything I write.


  • Another Stinkin’ Budget Crunch

    Now comes the news that Virginia is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall in the two-year budget that commenced a month and a half ago.

    Oops. How did that happen?

    Let’s dial back the time machine to Jan. 31, when the Washington Post reported, “House Republican leaders warned Thursday that there may be a shortfall of as much as $1 billion in Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s 2009-10 budget, and they demanded that he quickly revise revenue projections.”

    Well, with mounting evidence of a slowing economy, Kaine did ratchet back his revenue growth forecasts, and Republicans signed on to the revised budget after pushing for a reserve fund and trimming some of the governor’s spending initiatives. But it looks like they didn’t crank down spending enough. Here we are, not two months into the fiscal ’09 budget, and we’re already in a big, steaming mess of trouble.

    Along these lines, while writing a short story for R’Biz recently, I ran across an interesting statistic. The good news (for we Richmonders) was that, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the Richmond regional economy had experienced a net gain of 3,900 jobs over the previous 12 months. The bad news was, they were all government jobs, split fairly evenly between state and local government. That’s really bad news for the rest of the state, which is paying for those state government jobs through taxes.

    Could that data be correct? I wondered. After all the angst and pain over budget cuts this spring, was the state government in Richmond still padding payroll? To be sure, I checked the state department of human resource management website, and what did I find?

    Between January and June 2008, the state increased the number of non-university job rolls by 662 jobs. That doesn’t match up with the BLS numbers exactly, but it is consistent with the fact that government jobs are growing.

    However, the really big jump in jobs occurred among public university employees: up more than 5,000! That’s 15 percent. That makes public higher education, not government, the real growth industry in Virginia. Of course, it’s easy to grow if you can jack up charges and fees with impunity. (See “Tuitions Gone Wild.”) Is there any way to persuade universities to restructure, re-engineer processes or otherwise find ways to boost productivity and drive down costs? Can Gov. Kaine and the General Assembly ever get a handle on increasing payroll and costs until they tame higher ed?

    The governor will provide more authoritative information than the patch-work data I can glean from the Internet. We should hear more Monday on how bad the situation is and what can be done about it.

    (By the way folks, I’m leaving tomorrow on another long weekend jaunt. Off to Cincinnati. I won’t be blogging again until Tuesday.)


  • Trani to Retire in Mid-2009

    Breaking news. Eugene Trani has announced that he will step down from his position as president of Virginia Commonwealth University on July 1, 2009, a year earlier than previously planned. Recovering from quintuple coronary bypass surgery, Trani made the decision over the weekend, reports the Times-Dispatch. He will remain employed with the university as a professor.

    The decision comes at a time the university is under fire for the handling of the Rodney Monroe degree scandal and the university’s relationship with tobacco giant Philip Morris USA. VCU Rector Thomas G. Rosenthal insisted that the decision was entirely health related and had nothing to do with the recent controversies. “Zip, zero, zilch.”

    No surprise. As I asked about three weeks ago, “Has Trani Stayed On Too Long?

    Update: In a press conference today, Trani reiterated that he was retiring early for personal reasons related to poor health. He did add one interesting, if cryptic, note: “If I have one regret about what’s gone on this summer, it is there is an air of fear and intimidation at VCU. That’s not the VCU I know.”

    It’s not clear from his statement who he believed was intimidating whom. But Trani’s detractors have often accused him, or his administration, of intimidating dissenters. If he was thinking otherwise, I would like to know.


  • Do Virginians Support Off-Shore Drilling? Maybe.

    What do Virginians think about drilling for oil and gas off the Virginia coast? I haven’t seen any polls that ask that question specifically, but the American Petroleum Institute has generated data hinting that they might approve by large numbers.

    In a poll that encompassed 18 key states, the Institute found that 70 percent of 501 registered Virginia voters (likely to participate in the upcoming presidential election) would “support increased access to domestic oil and natural gas resources.”

    Admittedly, the question is pretty vague. While Virginians, like most other Americans, endorse the idea of producing more fossil fuels as a general idea, the data don’t tell us how they would respond to drilling in specific instances — especially if the drilling occurs near them. Would Virginians support drilling on the continental shelf off Virginia’s coastline by the same margin? The fact is, the API data doesn’t tell us.

    Even if someone framed the question to ask about drilling off Virginia’s coastline, I’m not sure how meaningful the answers would be. Very few voters are conversant enough with the economic and environmental trade-offs associated with offshore drilling to have informed opinions. Virginia media — and that includes blogs — haven’t begun to examine the latest drilling technologies, the experience of oil/gas companies in other regions, or the unique factors that might come into play off the Virginia coastline. All the evidence I have seen is anecdotal.

    The trouble with most polls — and that includes polls from the environmentalist/conservationist camp — is that they are designed to elicit responses that can be used for propaganda purposes. Rarely do they probe the complexities and nuances involved. Even if they did, they’d probably find that most voters were too ignorant to have intelligent opinions.


  • Don Defends Karl

    Don Harrison is one of my favorite bloggers because of posts like this, where he takes the measure of Karl Rove’s Richmond bashing and finds it…pretty fair:

    Some may judge a cityโ€™s size by its population or its land mass, others may use a different barometer โ€” one that measures small-minded attitudes and the institutional aversion to inclusion, fairness and common sense. If we use this last standard, we should not be too harsh on Mr. Rove for calling it like he sees it. If we stack Richmond up against some of the cities that the man affectionately nicknamed โ€œTurd Blossomโ€ mentioned on โ€œFace The Nation,โ€ we are clearly not ready for prime time.

    And that’s just the warm-up.


  • Tuitions Gone Wild

    It’s like a scene out of “Girls Gone Wild,” except instead of pretty co-eds misbehaving, it’s the college administrators. As a result of this year’s tuition and fee increases, Virginia undergraduate students can expect to pay on average 7.3% more in 2008-09 than they did the prior year. That translates into an additional burden of $499 more per student, according to the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV).

    The latest round of hikes perpetuates a decade-long trend of saddling students and their parents with ever-escalating bills for higher education. After adjusted for inflation, the annual average increase for in-state undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees is 3.1 percent at four-year institutions over the past decade, calculates SCHEV in its report, “2008-09 Tuition and Fees at Virginiaโ€™s State-Supported Colleges and Universities.

    Eleven institutions complied with the requirements of of the General Assembly’s Tuition Moderation Incentive Fund, restraining their tuition hikes in order to qualify for $17.5 million to be shared by qualifying schools. But six of the largest universities — Virginia Commonwealth University, the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, Virginia Tech, George Mason University and the Virginia Community College System — opted out.

    The tuition-moderation fund will provide participating schools a total of $17.5 million for limiting in-state undergraduate tuition and instruction-related fee increases to no more than 4 percent in 2008-09.By contrast, Virginia Tech is goosing its tuition, fees and charges upward by 9.4 percent, W&M by 8.7 percent and UVa by 7.3 percent.

    The usual response of universities is that they jack up their fees to compensate for cuts in state assistance. There is something to that argument — but it’s only part of the explanation. This year, the General Assembly boosted state aid by 2 percent. Inflation over the past year has run about 5 percent. Clearly, the legislative assistance was inadequate to cover the higher costs. But, as has been the pattern for just about forever, the six largest universities hiked tuition and fees significantly faster than the inflation rate.

    Bacon’s bottom line: Tuitions and fees at Virginia’s most prestigious public institutions are out of control. Boy, am I glad two of my three children have graduated. Only one to go. But I shudder to think what a university education will cost in another eight years.


  • Is Tysons Beyond Redemption?

    Is Tysons Corner beyond salvaging? Has Fairfax County missed the window of opportunity to create functional human settlement patterns there? Or is Virginia’s largest business district doomed to a slow, lingering death by entropy?

    I haven’t studied the issue closely enough to pretend to know the answer. But I do worry that the opportunity to transform Tysons Corner into something more economically sustainable has passed us by. What’s different now than 10 years ago? For one, energy costs are higher, and about 98 percent of the people who work in Tysons commute there from somewhere else. For another, construction costs have escalated markedly. The cost of tearing down and rebuilding the business district in a more functional grid pattern — not to mention providing the connective transportation tissue to the rest of the region — has become impossibly expensive.

    There may be enough wealth-generation potential in the businesses congregated there that those impossibly high costs might yet be borne. The business base is overwhelmingly geared toward knowledge-intensive companies that pay high salaries and can afford high rents. But there are limits to how much companies will be willing to pay, especially with competing business centers like Reston/Herndon and Rosslyn/Ballston all too eager to whisk them away.

    Such are the thoughts I have as I catch up on the activities of the Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force, which has been meeting monthly since June 2005. The task force is supposed to submit recommendations for transforming the region, which by all accounts is crippled by limited ingress and egress from the rest of the Washington metropolitan region and terrible transportation circulation within.

    I have been goaded into thinking about this topic by a document submitted by a blogger who goes by the pseudonym Too Many Taxes. TMT passed along a press release from the Greater Tysons Citizens Coalition (GTCC) and has been stimulating some interesting dialog in the comments section of this blog. After many distractions, I am turning my attention to his correspondence.

    Let me lay the groundwork by stating that the Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force has a noble goal: laying out a vision for transforming the business district over the next 30 to 50 years into something far more hospitable and functional than exists now. The task force is saying all the right things. Development needs to be more compact. It needs to allow mixed uses. It needs to create gridded, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. It needs to allow for non-automotive transportation options, from bicycles to mass transit.

    The impetus for the task force is the expectation that the commonwealth of Virginia will somehow find the $5 billion or more required to extend a heavy rail spur from the existing Metro rail system to Dulles airport, passing through Tysons Corner on the way. In theory, the rail line will provide much of the transportation capacity needed to serve the region, and the combination of Metro stations and higher building densities bestowed by Fairfax County will provide property owners the financial inducement to re-develop their land in line with this new vision.

    But there are problems that just won’t go away. Higher densities are fine — as long as Fairfax County and the commonwealth of Virginia can find the means to pay for the correspondingly high levels of roads, utilities and other public services required to support such a population. Higher densities are not OK if they fail to generate revenues streams to pay for the additional infrastructure required.

    That brings us to the GTCC press release, which points out that Tysons Corner as currently developed has 45 million square feet of commercial, retail, hotel and governmental/institutional space and some 7,900 residential units. Those numbers pale in comparison to some of the scenarios being discussed. Says the press release:

    At the last public outreach meetings in February 2008, citizens were asked to comment on two prototypes with stated density levels of 96 and 127 million square feet. Since the February meetings, County staff has analyzed the 127 million figure to result in an โ€œIntensity Potentialโ€ of 146 million square feet. In comparison, the Task Force is considering a recommendation that would have an intensity potential of 220 million square feet.

    In other words, different density scenarios under discussion call for anywhere between three and five times the current density. We’re talking mid-town Manhattan, if I’m not mistaken.

    In 2000, the area supported 65,500 jobs, according to the Bureau of Census. Presumably, tripling density would increase the number of jobs by a like amount — to close to 200,000 people. Quintipling density would put the number over 300,000. If transportation is bottlenecked now, what would it be like if five times the number of people were commuting in and out of the area? Such a vast number would swamp the capacity of a single rail line and four above-ground Metro stations to serve the district. In other words, to paraphrase Ed Risse, the prospects for achieving a balance of population and transportation capacity seem remote.

    In theory, allowing developers to build more residential housing would help alleviate transportation congestion. According to a 2007 market analysis, 17,500 residential units would be added under the “moderate” growth scenario, 25,000 under the “strong” scenario. While some of those residents undoubtedly would work in Tysons Corner, most of them would not. According to the 2000 Census, only a third of the 11,300 residents in Tysons worked locally. If that ratio stayed constant, the added residential units would take only 3,000 to 8,000 commuters off the roads. Mixed use is part of the solution for Tysons, but only a small part.

    One more point: The task force is counting on higher densities to provide property owners the incentives to re-develop along the lines laid out by the proposed comprehensive plan. But the business district has a track record between 1994 and 2006 of absorbing 600,000 of office space per year on average. To fill the tens of millions of square feet contemplated would take decades. Property owners cannot generate a competitive return on capital if they have to wait that long for a payback.

    In an April letter to the task force, property owner Dan Clemente touched upon the desnity problem. “As it exists today, throughout this quadrant, all of the property is currently developed with sound business uses; the densities being proposed in this plan are not high enough to justify the economic costs involved with disrupting these going concerns. That being the case, this design will frustrate if not make impossible the planning staff’s goals of consolidated development.”

    While the planning staff could solve Clemente’s problem by increasing his density, it could not do so politically without increasing the density of other property owners as well. But to do that would create a massive overhang of development rights that would allow developers to build far more office space than the district could possibly absorb in an economically justifiable length of time.

    From my vantage point, it looks like Tysons Corner is locked into its dysfunctional human settlement patterns. The cost to transform the district into something more inviting and sustainable is so high that it cannot be economically justified. If Tysons cannot be transformed, it will enter into a long, slow decline relative to other business districts with better urban design.

    I hope I’m wrong. In a sense, Tysons is “too big to fail.” Northern Virginia, and by extension all of Virginia, has too much riding on the success of the business district as a cent
    er of economic activity. But I hold out little hope for its long-term future.


  • We Don’t Rank on the Rove-O-Meter

    Let’s see, Richmond as Chula Vista, a large, 220,000 population or so suburb of San Diego? Or maybe Aurora, Col.?

    “It’s not a big town,” said Republican political maven Karl Rove of the former Capital of the Confederacy on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this Sunday.

    Or how about Tim Kaine being an OK but not especially remarkable governor? “He’s able but undistinguished,” added Rove, who was head of George W. Bush’s “Brain Trust,” which itself might be considered a misnomer.

    Of course, Kaine is being considered as a possible running mate with Barack Obama just as Republican Congressman Eric Cantor is being considered as a possible running mate with John McCain. However, leading conservative editorial pages, such as the Wall Street Journal, tend to leave off Cantor’s name when they review possible candidates. One could also describe Cantor as OK, but undistinguished, but at least Kaine seems to get mentioned more freely and without caveat as being VP material.

    My question is: where is the outrage among all the conservatives who read and write on this blog?

    Aren’t you offended that this Rove character has insulted the sanctity of Richmond, which should be considered on the level of Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham, Atlanta or any urban center of the Old South? After all, Richmond is more than 220,000 people — it is the center of a region with more than one million people. Even more important, it is a state of mind. Just read Jim Bacon who has perhaps done more to encourage his own imaginative idea of “Richmond” than dapper, white-suited Tom Wolfe, the famous author.

    I love and hate Richmond. I love its physical beauty and its multifaceted cultural diversity. Name me a place its size that has more home-grown music or Class V whitewater downtown. I also hate Richmond for its smug, pompous and irrelevant would-be ruling elite. I have lived elsewhere in the South and have enjoyed its open, friendly nature. Except for Richmond, which is cold, exclusive and snobbish. And, Richmond is actually a cesspool of poverty — a point that was made tellingly at a seminar hosted by Style Weekly magazine last week.

    But whether you love it or hate it or both, Richmond sure as hell isn’t North Las Vegas. Karl Rove thinks it is.

    What are we going to to about this?

    Peter Galuszka


  • If California Can Do It…

    Maybe it’s the desperation born of a $15 billion budget deficit this year, but extraordinary things are happening in California. According to the Sacramento Bee, an “unlikely coalition” of environmentalists, builders and local governments agreed Wednesday on legislation that would stop using state transportation money to subsidize “sprawl.”

    California’s SB 375 would use the $5 billion in transportation money the state allocates each year to encourage compact development. The bill also would change how regions make transportation decisions to encourage development that increases affordable housing and reduces commute times, emissions and gasoline consumption. Additionally, the law would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to reward projects that improve air quality and energy conservation.

    “We cannot continue to do business as usual,” said Ray Becker, chairman of the California Building Industry AssociationBecker said. “We all agree in one way or another to change the way we do business to be able to come together in this historic agreement.”

    Such an agreement could never happen in Virginia, where productive dialog between key constituencies — legislators, local governments, the building industry, environmentalists and conservationists — is next to non-existent.

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine struck out when he called a special General Assembly session to discuss transportation without first forging a consensus. If he wants to take another swing at the problem, he would be well advised to see how the warring parties were brought together in California… then try something similar. What we’re doing now is not working.

    (Hat tip: Ted McCormack)


  • The Nexus Between the Cost of Bunker Fuel, DVDs from Asia, Grapes from Chile and Highway Construction in Virginia

    Peter Galuszka raises a fascinating issue that has received little play yet in the popular media, or even in the business press that I have seen: the impact of rising fuel prices on international trade. Insofar as Virginia’s economy is intertwined with the global economy, and insofar as various advocacy groups are pressing for multi-billion dollar transportation investments to Hampton Roads predicated on the assumption that past trade patterns will continue into the future, we need to pay attention.

    In “The Corner Office,” the business blog he writes for B/Net, Peter asks if shipping fuel price hikes will “scuttle globalization.” He presents some fascinating data:

    The workhorse of the World Economic Globalization Fleet is the typical 800 or 1,000-foot container ship usually launched in South Korea or Japan. One ship can carry about 2,000 tons of bunker fuel and burns from 20 to 30 tons every day at sea.

    According to Financial Express, bunker can run about $700 a ton, up by $200 a ton from this spring. Letโ€™s do the math. A Norfolk-bound ship from Asia that may take 14 days for a one-way trip has a fuel bill of $294,000 instead of $210,000 a few months ago.

    Already, shippers are cutting back. One example: half a world away, some 14 ships running the busy route between Bangladesh and Singapore have suspended their trips because of high fuel costs, Financial Express reports.

    I explored the same angle from a different perspective in a May blog post: the impact of a lower-valued dollar and shrinking trade deficit on trade flows. A weaker dollar makes foreign products more expensive in the United States, hence less competitive. Cargo landing in Hampton Roads and heading west on Interstate 64 and U.S. 460 boomed during the decade-long reign of the strong dollar. Infrastructure projects were planned based on the assumption that past trends would continue. To what extent, I asked in May, would a weak dollar halt the largely one-way trade flows?

    Now, on top of a weaker dollar, we must consider the fact that the higher price for bunker fuel can add $80,000 to $85,000 to the cost of container ship traveling halfway around the world.

    I’m not sure what $80,000 translates into on a per-container cost. Wikipedia says that typical container ships have a capacity of 3,000 TEUs or 1,500 containers. (Some ships are twice that large.) That implies an added cost of roughly $55 per container. Compared to the value of the merchandise, that’s hardly crippling. But, as Peter points out, the evidence suggests that it’s sufficient to dent overseas shipping.

    To answer the rhetorical question atop Peter’s blog post, no, rising fuel costs don’t spell the end to “globalization,” which includes the flow of capital and the exchange of services as well as products that can be packed into shipping containers. But higher bunker fuel prices may alter global trading patterns in physical products.

    (And we’re not just talking about Nikes and big-screen TVs. In another vein, Ed Risse has written how the impact of rising fuel costs on the import of fruits and vegetables from other countries could reinforce the growing consumer preference for locally grown produce.)

    We Virginians need to pay attention. This is not an arcane matter of interest only to business school professors or big companies with global supply chains. Global trading patterns affect the long-range, multibillion-dollar transportation investments that Virginia taxpayers are being called upon to help finance. We can either anticipate the impact of rising fuel prices, or we can be blindsided by them.


  • GAS PRICES AND RELATED

    The WaPo series โ€œOil Shockโ€ continued today. All in all a good series that has been running since 27 July. How can you not like a series that profiles your past life?

    The oil field profiled in the 29 July story looks EXACTLY like the oil lease North and West of Bakersfield where our family lived during the late 40s. That house in the background in the page A-8 photo with a few scraggly athel trees could our house. My father and mother were farmers. He also worked in the oil fields during World War II โ€“ too old for military service. The job in Central Valley โ€œold field productionโ€ was a way station after being forced out of farming in the Santa Inez Valley. While living in Coalinga they decided to move to Montana where hunting, fishing and sub-irrigated meadows beckoned.

    But back to the series: Todayโ€™s story: โ€œGas Prices Applying Brakes To Suburban Migration; Reality Check on the American Dreamโ€ repeats much of what you have heard from Bacon and Risse for over 20 years. All the usual suspects say the usual things including the mouth pieces for Business-As-Usual and the Autonomobile. See the note on funding of transportation โ€œexpertsโ€ in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.

    Ironically WaPo chose to feature a home in South Riding. South Riding started as a quasi New Urbanist Planned New Village. Of all the places in the eastern part of Loudoun County, South Riding still has the best shot at Balance and โ€œcommunityโ€ at the Village scale. There is a range of building types, a plan with the original intent of becoming an โ€œEnglish Villageโ€ and a core of First Families that believe in creating something better than more dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Full disclosure: The South Riding governance structure is a former client of SYNERGY/Planning.

    In the end, the story is more He Said, She Said journalism — with a small โ€œjโ€ — but at least it mentions the problems even if it papers over most of them with Geographically Illiterate foolishness such as we will not โ€œall decide to live in apartment houses.โ€ Who in the world said โ€œeveryoneโ€ would or should? Only the strawperson spinners of the Autonomobile crowd. A Balanced (Alpha) Community could have fewer apartments that Single Household Detached dwellings and no โ€œhigh-risesโ€ but that does not keep the Autonomobile crowd from throwing up red herrings and strawpersons to scare the uninformed and ride the tiger a little longer. See โ€œTiger Ridersโ€ 2 June 2008.

    For those who continue to obfuscate an understanding of human settlement patterns by railing against S/Pโ€™s campaign for the use of precise language, take a look at the graphic sidebar on page A14. You will note Radial Analysis (truncated by the lack of data below the County scale) and the use of terms like โ€œCore.โ€ We suspect the editors never looked at the side bar. It makes too much sense and if you read it with care you understand how much of WaPo coverage is misleading at best and often intentional obfuscation.

    An aside: Check out The Shape of the Future page at Amazon.Com. Look at the โ€œInside the Bookโ€ feature and at โ€œStatistically Improbable Phrases.โ€ This is a feature that Amazon added not long after our book was published in 2000. The same sort of software now produces those โ€œword balloonsโ€ that are popular on โ€œstyleโ€ pages. A lot of what were โ€œstatistically improbable phrasesโ€ in the early years of the decade are not any longer.

    Back to gasoline, CNN Money.Com reprinted a Fortune story yesterday โ€œFalling oil prices: The Downsideโ€ that is a MUST READ. The reason oil prices (and gas prices) are down is lower demand โ€“ here, not in China or India. That is bad news for the economy and the need to establish a rational strategy to reduce consumption and energy waste without causing a long, hard depression. See our column of yesterday โ€“ โ€œBeyond the Headlinesโ€ โ€“ for further discussion of the missed opportunities.

    Apparently the mavens of Gambling Venue New York (aka, the New York Stock Market) did not get to their MUST READ pile. They will in a day or two and the market will drop 200 points. That is what gambling venues do to keep the game interesting.

    And on the politics-as-usual front: candidates are falling all over themselves to find ways to lower the price of gasoline and energy. They should be suggesting ways to lower the consumption of gasoline, energy and non-renewable resources, not just lowering the price.

    Let the market work, stop bailing out the greedy and punishing the thrifty.

    At least WaPo gets that right in the Oil Shock series.

    EMR