Fairfax County Park Authority Doesn't Want Developer Money, only Taxpayer Funds

Fairfax County voters will be asked next week to approve $25 million in new bonds for land acquisition, upgrading soccer fields and trail expansion. These all seem to be good projects, but since this is Fairfax County, there's more than meets the eye.

At a public meeting last week, Dranesville Supervisor Joan DuBois was asked why the County fails to request any proffers for parks and recreation. Prince William County, which has a lower real estate tax rate than Fairfax County despite our oceans of commercial office buildings, requests more than $3900 for parks from new new home built in Prince William County under rezoning. What is Fairfax County's target proffer for parks? Nothing. Zero. DuBois answered that she has never been approached by anyone from the Fairfax County Park Authority for any proffer money. The FCPA's policy is too hold developers harmless. Why?

The FCPA has been more than willing to charge fees for children's sports, decrease discounts for senior citizens using parks, accept funds and work from volunteers, raise fees for recreational activities, and seek voter approval for bonds, but will not request a single dime from a developer. Who are these people, the members of the Park Authority? Edward R. Batten, Sr., William G. Bouie, Kevin J. Fay, Kenneth G. Feng, Harrison A. Glasgow, Georgette Kohler, George E. Lovelace, Joanne E. Malone, Gilbert S. McCutcheon, Winifred S. Shapiro, Harold L. Strickland, and Frank S. Vajda. If you know any of them, you might want to ask why they are protecting developers from paying proffers comparable to what these very same developers pay when they build in nearby Prince William County. You might also want to ask them why they are working against their neighbors.

McLean Chamber's Effort to Finesse Tough Questions about the Silver Line

The McLean Chamber of Commerce is taking another run at a tunnel at Tysons Corner for the proposed Silver Line. The Chamber does not like Governor Tim Kaine's decision to support an elevated line and is engaged in a big PR campaign to reverse that decision. It has a website
http://www.tysonstunnel.org and is raising some valid issues, including the longer life for a tunnel versus elevated track, the general aesthetics, and whether competitive bidding could reduce the costs.

But, as is unfortunately all too true with Fairfax businesses, the Chamber is dodging the big questions -- the hard questions. Instead of acknowledging real issues with the Silver Line, the Chamber makes an attempt to finesse them with a website, catchy slogan ("It's not over until it's under"), T-shirts and a slick PR firm. Many local residents, who would quickly agree that a tunnel is better than the El, would still like the hard questions answered. Here are three that should be answered by the McLean Chamber of Commerce publicly and immediately.

1) Why should taxpayers and toll road users spend at least $4 billion dollars to build a Metro extension when the Commonwealth's own data show that there is no significant improvement in traffic? The data have been publicly posted on this blog as of September 9, 2006. Yet, no one addresses this serious failure.

Moreover, the $4 billion cost estimate is not likely valid anymore. It's likely way too low. Construction costs continue to soar. The details of this inflation can readily be found at the website of the Association of General Contractors.
http://www.agc.org If one takes AGC data for increases the producers price index for other heavy construction and sets costs for 2001 at 100, the index for August 2006 is up to 141.02. Moreover, the construction trade association forecasts continued inflation in construction materials at rates above general inflation.

2) In view of these increasing costs and the limited financing being provided by the federal government and the local business tax district, there will be cost overruns, regardless of which entity runs the program. Who will pay for these cost overruns?

3) Who is funding the Chamber's efforts to lobby approval for the tunnel? The Chamber should produce a list that includes the top 50 contributors and the amounts given. Is this a grassroots effort or one being funded by the big Tysons Corner landowners (e.g., West Group) and their executives, consultants and agents?

Let's talk about all the issues and not just the ones the PR firm thinks are best.

Some Sensible Remarks

I understand that Fairfax County supervisor Joan DuBois made some sensible remarks about our transportation mess last evening. DuBois, who supports the Silver Line and regularly decries the paltry sums given back to Fairfax County from Richmond, questioned whether we could ever build or widen roads to the extent necessary to alleviate traffic congestion. Where could a major north-south road be located? What would be the costs for buying homes and businesses necessary to obtain right-of-way? Does a 12-lane Route 7 or Route 123 make any sense?

DuBois talked about the need for the county, the feds, and businesses to look seriously at both staggered work hours and telecommuting. True, many people pay lip service to these ideas, but that's about it. Our schools operate on staggered schedules. High and middle schools start earlier than our elementary schools in Fairfax County because of limited infrastructure -- here, school buses. Not everyone likes the current staggered schedules. As a parent of a teenager in high school, I know the problems that exist with the early morning start. But, at the same time, I realize that there would be a substantial cost to add sufficient school buses and drivers to start all FCPS schools at the same time. There are competing priorities and limited resources.

Many government agencies and some businesses offer their employees some flexibility on working hours. So why can't we look at staggering work hours in metro Washington?

Ditto for telecommuting. More and more people do it, even though everyone cannot. Congressman Frank Wolf has long been leading the van to get more telecommuting from federal agencies. Likewise, both Jim Moran and Tom Davis are strong supporters of telecommuting. GMU concluded in a study that, for every one percent of reduction in the number of drivers on our roads, we experience a three percent improvement in traffic congestion. So why can't we get a serious commitment for telecommuting from state and local goverment leaders? Perhaps, it's because more campaign contributions come from those who like the status quo.

It's simply time to ignore those little minds who think the only solution to traffic problems is to tax more and to build more. This does not mean we never widen roads or extend transit, but why shouldn't we first pick the low-hanging fruit. I'm glad to see that, at least one supervisor, can move beyond failed solutions. Let's hope her colleagues can also begin to think outside the box.

Connolly's FBI Foolishness

Our Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Gerry Connolly, once again proves that his first loyalty is to Tyson Corner's big landowners. The FBI has announced that it will be moving its regional headquarters from Tysons Corner to Prince William County. Mr. Connolly decries this as a terrible result for Fairfax County that would make traffic worse.

Yet, this is the very same Gerry Connolly who argues that there are too many cars at Tysons now, such that taxpayers & toll road drivers need to pay billions more to build the Silver Line, and that the mismatch of jobs and residences at Tysons requires the addition of well more than 130,000 new residents at Tysons. Smart growth, not sprawl chirps Chairman Connolly to the smiling approval of West Group and other big Tysons landowners.

But now, Connolly objects to the movement of jobs closer to where the workers actually live. When a scale is out of balance, the situation can be added by adjusting either side or both. If too many people drive to Tysons each day, jamming our roads, one solution is to reduce the number of people driving. That can be done with transit, telecommuting and also moving good-paying jobs to near where workers live. I suspect that, just as with the BRAC move of jobs from Crystal City to Fort Belvior, the move of the FBI from Tysons to Prince William would actually reduce the commutes of many workers. Moreover, even for those workers living in Fairfax County, the relocation would create more reverse-commuting traffic on roads such as I-66. People would drive west in the morning and east at night and not vice versa. Balancing traffic flows provides a better and more efficient use of highways.

Spreading good jobs throughout the area reduces the need to build public facilities in Fairfax County. Since Connolly and his colleagues don't seek adequate proffers to pay for some of these facilities, the costs fall on county residents. We suffer both higher taxes and declining quality of life. Of course, the commercial landowners, whose share of real estate taxes has declined for six straight years, might lose a bit of rent. In the eyes of Gerry Connolly, better ordinary residents pay more to supersize Tysons Corner than for his campaign contributors to take a hit.

The FBI's move will save taxpayers, both federal and local, money. It's a good move for all of us.

Gerry Connolly's Verbal Fertilizer - Part II

Yesterday's Washington Post contained Gerry Connolly's lament that Fairfax County is the bank for Virginia and that he's outraged. He's right on the facts, but his outrage is selective. Where was Connolly when former Governor Mark Warner was crafting the largest tax increase in Virginia history that took even more money from Fairfax County and returned only pennies?

Gerry was cheering on the tax increase. He didn't care that it increased the role of Fairfax County as Virginia's piggy bank. No, Connolly was all for it. Mr. Say Anything, Do Anything.

According to the staff of the Senate Finance Committee, the impact of the Warner-Chichester phase-out/elimination of the senior citizen income tax credit cost Fairfax County residents $11.6 M in FY 2005 & $13.9 M in FY 2006. That's a full 26% of the entire statewide impact of the credit's elimination. Did Connolly care about his constituents? The total net increase to Fairfax County taxpayers for FY 2005 was more than $107 M and $209 M for FY 2006. Did Connolly care about his constituents? According to FCPS, our schools received slightly more than $13 M in new sales tax money. Fine with Connolly.

I'm not here to debate whether the Warner-Chichester tax increase was good or bad for Virginia, but it sure was a fiscal disaster for Fairfax County. Why did Gerry Connolly support the very concept, robbing Fairfax County to subsidize the rest of Virginia, that he now condemns? Gerry Connolly -- Mr. Say Anything, Do Anything.

Connolly's Verbal Manure -- Day Care & the EDA

Gerry Connolly's latest round of political manure on day care has hit the press. Too bad the press is generally incapable of doing the research necessary to connect the dots. If it did, the stories would also expose the hollowness of Connolly's argument.

Connolly is again complaining that the General Assembly did not fund day care the working poor. He postures anger because Fairfax taxpayers must either stand the $6 M bill or the subsidy is cut. Well Mr. Connolly, one easy solution would be to end the Fairfax County annual subsidy of $6.8 M to the Economic Development Authority and transfer money to support day care subsidies. The bulk of the EDA's money goes to advertise for more businesses and people to move to Fairfax County -- just what we need -- more people and more cars. This helps owners of commercial real estate fill their buildings. In most areas of the country, businesses pay their own advertising costs. Not in Fairfax County. Not when we have government by campaign contribution.

The EDA's chief, Dr. Gerald Gordon, touts that the EDA brings businesses here to keep our real estate taxes lower. He argues, with the full support of Chairman Connolly, that the EDA's work causes commercial buildings to pay a greater percentage of the real estate taxes. Gordon and Connolly might as well argue that the sun rises in the west. Last year's Fairfax County budget explained that the percentage of the real estate tax paid by commercial buildings fell to 17.22% and that this would be the sixth straight year of decline. In sum, Gordon's operation is a failure, except that it generates campaign contributions for Connolly and his allies. It's much cheaper to make a contribution to Connolly's war chest than to pay advertising costs.

Connolly's rail against the General Assembly rings hollow. If Gerry Connolly cared about the day care families and ordinary taxpayers, instead of the big landowners and their lobbyists, he would zero-out the EDA and transfer the money to the day care fund. But don't hold your breath; Connolly is generally regarded as more committed to West Group than to the citizens of Fairfax County. All we'll likely get from the Chairman is more verbal manure.

HOT Lanes - Why Extend to Georgetown Pike?

The WaPo reports that VDOT is thinking about pouring more taxpayer money into the proposed Beltway HOT lanes because Fluor cannot make the project work. See my discussion of 10/20. Included in the story is the following: "Virginia transportation officials say the Beltway project, which would add four high-occupancy toll lanes between Springfield and Georgetown Pike, is a good deal even if it requires a considerable amount of public money."

Why would any thinking person decide to terminate the HOT lanes at the Georgetown Pike? It would make sense to run HOT lanes all the way to Maryland if and only if Maryland were also planning to build similar lanes. Guess what? Maryland is not planning to do so. Therefore, the Virginia lanes need to be terminated before the Maryland line.

Georgetown Pike is not the place to terminate those lanes. Georgetown Pike, a state scenic byway, is a narrow, windy road in the middle of residential neighborhoods. It cannot handle increased traffic volumes. Ending HOT lanes at the Pike would create a nightmare. Where would the traffic go? Did any of the people working on this project ever drive south on the New Jersey Turnpike where the lanes narrow? Traffic backs-up for miles! If were were to terminate HOT lanes at the Georgetown Pike, some of that traffic would clearly start spilling onto Georgetown Pike and neighborhood streets. Also, keep in mind that there are many schools near the Pike, including Langley H.S. , Cooper Middle, St. Luke's, Maderia, and Oakcrest. Do we want more traffic near these schools?

HOT lanes must terminate at the Dulles Toll Road, not on a narrow, winding road through residential neighborhoods and near our schools. Moreover, termination of the HOT lanes at the Toll Road would reduce the cost of the project. That's in everyone's best interest. Concerned individuals should contact VDOT to complain or NoVA's representative to the CTB, Doug Koelemay. He's a sharp guy who should be able to stop this foolishness. If not, we need a new CTB representative.

In View of Construction Cost Increases, the Silver Line Needs a New Look

I love small local newspapers, regardless of their political bent. Their reporters cover stories that the MSM regularly ignores. Being small and local means that they need to be good to survive. They tend to care more about reporting than advancing the editor's goals, such as raising taxes, ala the Washington Post.

The Connection newspaper just ran a story discussing the recent problems with Fluor's plans to build four HOT lanes on the Beltway between Springfield & the Dulles Toll Road. http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=72418&cat=109 Fluor would construct these lanes and keep the tolls until 2065. Car pools and transit buses could use the lanes for free.

The last estimate of the costs for constructing 14 miles of these lanes and associated improvements ws $900 M. However, with the huge run-ups in construction materials and energy, the HOT lanes project's costs also seem to be spiraling out of control. Fluor has apparently been trying to find at least $150 M from either the federal or Virginia government.

Perhaps, we (or at least state and local government officials) should pause to ask whether this cost escalation of 16% -- or more? -- might be telling us something. If Fluor's estimated costs are up by 16%, just how valid is the current estimate of $4 B to construct the Silver Line? At a minimum, one could reasonably assume that today's cost estimate would hit $4.64 B. And that's before adding in the costs for a tunnel, which is apparently back in play, at least in the minds of some. Moreover, that's an awful lot of money for something that does not improve traffic congestion. See my blog entry for September 9, 2006.

I suspect that the Commonwealth knows this and is concerned that higher costs will jeopardize federal funding for the entire project. I would not be surprised to learn that cost escalation factors alone caused Governor Tim Kaine to make the decision not to support the tunnel option. Kaine's decision was right then and remains correct today.

But Kaine should go further than this. He needs to have state government take a fresh look at the likely costs for completing this project before he commits to it. Those new costs need to be made public now. Kaine's decision to turn the Silver Line project to the MWAA was the right one, but the MWAA cannot ignore economic reality. There is a good chance that the Silver Line, as proposed, has become unaffordable.

The Governor should also take a second look at returning the Silver Line to the median of the Toll Road. Keep it out of Tysons. Return the Silver Line to being a transportation issue, instead of being a means to enable more development at Tysons Corner. It's time to put the public interest above that of the big landowners.

Connolly's Pledge - No Tax Hike

Gerry Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors, has announced that he will not support any increase in the real estate tax rate for fiscal 2008. Connolly has warned department heads that the county's revenues are only expected to grow by three percent and that county spending cannot continue on its present trend.

A sincere effort to give taxpayers a break or election year politics? (All supervisors are up for election in 2007.) At this stage, I don't know how to judge Connolly. To his credit, county spending per se (as opposed to school spending) has generally not grown at rates that exceed the growth in population and inflation. This is not to agree, however, that there's no room for improvement on the county side. For example, Pay-for-Performance has resulted in excessive raises because a bell-shaped curve for evaluations has never been used.

But school spending continues to explode, even though overall enrollment has flattened. The supervisors have tried for years to have the schools keep increases to a target, but have generally failed in that task. Former superintendent Domenech believed that it was his job to get as much money for the schools as possible, but did not care much for how he spent it. Our current school chief, Jack Dale, seems to have a better understanding that the money belongs to taxpayers, but he still spends more than the supervisors' target. Last year, the supervisors gave then school board head I. Moon a tough questioning at the county budget hearing. Mr. Moon did not seem to understand the problem of limited resources as well as he should have.

How will Mr. Dale and his staff respond? Will they look for ways to reduce non-instructional costs? Last time I looked, FCPS had at least 200 curriculum specialists. The schools have also resisted contracting out support and administrative services. (Must keep those labor unions happy.) What about measuring programs' results? Will the schools ever propose eliminating a program that does not seem to be producing results? Or will they pull something from Domenech's bag of dirty tricks in order to retain big funding increases? Mr. Domenech, to his discredit, would regularly circulate a list of popular programs (e.g., ROTC, language immersion, GT) that would absolutely need to be eliminated if he did not receive all the funding that he demanded. One would hope that Jack Dale will first look at overhead.

In addition, FCPS should develop a baseline budget that shows what would be required to meet, but not exceed, any state and federal mandates. Then the budget should show various costs to exceed those requirements by specific increments, along with the expected results for deploying the additional resources. For example, if the state sets a maximum class size of 26 for a particular grade, what are the costs for compliance at that specific level? Then FCPS could show the additional costs and expected results to reduce class size to 25, 24, etc. Reducing class size to 25 would cost an additional $X and would produce an average 2% improvement on the SOLs. Reducing class size to 24 would cost $Y more and produce a 3% improvement on SOL scores. Etc.

I would not expect that everyone would agree where to draw the lines. As a parent of children in FCPS, I might want smaller class sizes than would some of my neighbors. But if FCPS would provide this type of budget detail, we all could debate costs and benefits as opposed to emotions. I suspect that consensus would develop around a spending plan that exceeded state standards somewhat. The final budget would probably exceed what the taxpayers' association would want, but be less than those parents who measure educational success solely by the amount of money spent. That would probably be a good and fair result. Moreover, we could then measure the results to see how what our added tax dollars produced.

Bottom line, if Gerry Connolly's pledge is to be kept, he needs the full cooperation of Jack Dale, his staff and the school board. Fortunately for all of us, Jack Dale is no Daniel Domenech. Dale is a reasonable person.

Local Democrats & Republicans Stand Firm to Give Transportation/Land Use Reform a Chance

Those of us of all political stripes who want to see meaningful reforms in transportation (including the institution of cost controls for VDOT and the reform or elimination of the CTB's funding expensive transportation projects based on lobbying) and land use (at least some steps toward adequate public facilities laws) should cheer three local Democratic members of the House of Delegates (along with some area Republicans) who refused to raise taxes in the special session of the General Assembly. Democratic Delegates Bob Hull, Steve Shannon and Chuck Caputo joined their GOP counterparts, Jeff Frederick, Tim Hugo, Bob Marshall and Scott Lingamfelter to vote in committee against several transportation tax increases. Their collective act of sensibility and political courage could enable those many elected officials of both parties who want reforms to try again next session. (The Washington Post will be after their individual hides for not raising taxes. )

I'm not arguing that Virginia could not use any more money for transportation or that the tax and fee proposals from GOP Delegates David Albo and Tom Rust were necessarily unreasonable. But we need reforms first before we dedicate more of our incomes to transportation. Had these good Delegates caved to pressure from the tax-happy crowd and those who are subsidized, the chances of seeing any reform next year would be lessened.

How badly do we need reform? This is state where a prominent developer went to a meeting in Richmond where he arrogantly informed a crowd of public officials and ordinary citizens that he built things and it was the job of taxpayers to pay whatever it takes to fund the infrastructure necessary to support new development. Those comments strike me as repugnant and symptomatic of what is wrong with Virginia.

I like real estate people. I've generally found them to be good business operators and citizens. Most will accept reasonable regulations (just as the rest of us do in our businesses) and will pay fair fees to support public facilities (as is done throughout most of the rest of the nation). I don't think that development should be demonized per se or should pay all government infrastructure costs in Virginia. But some, especially in Fairfax County, seem to think that we still live in feudal days. They are the lords of the realm and we are the vassals and serfs intended to serve their needs.

Flash, King John signed the Magna Carta ages ago. The founders of this country gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights many years ago. We owe no duty to a few who want the unlimited right to build what they want, where they want it and when they want it. We are not mere "commoners" who owe obligations to our "betters" to pay more and more so that a few can operate their businesses as they see fit and without paying reasonable fees to support public facilities.

We need reforms now. Fix the system. Make it fair. Measure VDOT's performance. Reign in the CTB and the lobbyists who work before it. Adopt APFO statutes. Make sure that these reforms work. Then, let's discuss funds. Because of the sensibility of Delegates Hull, Shannon, Caputo, Frederick, Hugo, Marshall and Lingamfelter, we might have another chance with the next session of the General Assembly. Thank you all, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Judy Feder's Hypocrisy on Earmarks

The Democrats' candidate for Congress in the 10th District, Judy Feder, has challenged incumbent Frank Wolf on appropriations earmarks. A fair challenge. A lot of people don't like earmarks. They smack of government by campaign contribution.

However, at the very same time, Feder criticizes Wolf for not obtaining an earmark for the proposed Tysons Corner tunnel for Dulles Rail. This is inconsistent and hypocritical. Moreover, the entire Silver Line project is filled with the very politics of campaign contributions that Feder purports to oppose. Clearly, one of the biggest recipients of campaign contributions from West Group, its executives and other Tysons Corner landowners is our Governor Tim Kaine. The last time I looked, Kaine was still a Democrat.

The evidence, the Final EIS for Dulles Rail that was submitted, in December 2004, by the Commonwealth of Virginia (under then-Governor Mark Warner (D)), shows that Dulles Rail will not provide any substantial reduction in traffic volumes. (Table 6.2-2) But Governor Kaine still wants taxpayers and Toll Road to pay $4 billion (before cost overruns) to pay for this. Why? Certainly, the biggest beneficiary of this taxpayer largesse is the biggest landowner at Tysons -- West Group. West Group and its executives made huge contributions to Kaine's campaign. Is our Governor supporting this gigantic expenditure from taxpayers and Toll Road users as a pay-back for the contributions? If not, why is he doing this? Why does Judy Feder think that this is OK?

To his credit, Governor Kaine rejected West Group chief Gerald Halpin's request to build the tunnel regardless of the financial consequences. But Judy Feder thinks that this is wrong. She thinks that Congressman Wolf should have obtained legislation that would override the Federal Transit Administration's cost-benefit guidelines. In short, Feder thinks Wolf should have effectively obtained an earmark for the Tysons tunnel that doesn't benefit commuters. This is not even a case of tax and spend -- it's tax and waste to subsidize big campaign contributors.

This is illogical and hypocritical. Shame on you Judy Feder.

I welcome a response from Feder's campaign. But I caution that such response must address Table 6.2-2 from the Final EIS that shows construction of the Silver Line will not provide any significant traffic relief. (I'll delete any response that fails to address this key issue with data and numbers. The citizens of Fairfax County, be they Democrats, Republicans or Independents, deserve answers based on facts and data and not mere puffing (e.g., smart growth, walkable communities)). If there are new data that show otherwise, please provide it.

Silver Line Cost Overruns & No Traffic Relief -- The Silence is Deafening

I've learned through many years in business that most good business managers listen to customer concerns and attempt to address them in a reasonable manner. For example, when a customer objects to the up-front price of a product, the supplier might use facts and data to demonstrate that, over the product's expected life-cycle, its maintenance costs are much lower than those of lower-priced, competing products, such that total life-cycle costs are lower. Alternatively, the supplier might agree to "throw in" two-years of "no-charge" maintenance or agree to match the price of a competing product.

Sometimes, however, try as they will, suppliers simply cannot provide an adequate response and they lose a sale. For example, a couple years ago, I bought a new car. I shopped several dealers and got price quotes from some. One dealer gave me a firm price that seemed reasonable. I took that price and recontacted two other dealers that were most responsive and competitive. I gave them the best price and asked them to beat it. Both tried, but neither could. So I bought the car from the first dealer. What is important is that those car dealers that wanted my business had to address my issues, in this case, price. They didn't ignore the issue or try to play games.

Yet, the supporters of the Silver Line, landowners, their agents and contractors and government officials, are not addressing the issues raised about the Silver Line. The two big issues are: who will pay for cost overruns; and why are we spending so much money for rail without also obtaining any meaningful traffic relief? Table 6.2-2 from the December 2004 Final EIS (posted herein on September 9, 2006) remains unaddressed. The best answer I've heard (indirectly) was "it just has to be wrong."

Likewise, with construction costs continuing to rise well above ordinary inflation (doubters may turn to the Association of General Contractors' website for details) and the history of huge cost overruns in transportation projects (think "Big Dig" readers), the Silver Line will most certainly incur them. Yet, the promoters of Dulles Rail remain silent as to who will bear them. The silence is, indeed, deafening. The clear and reasonable inference is that real estate taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users will pay the excess costs.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "huckster" as follows: "One who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. " Does anyone besides me think that the promoters of Dulles Rail fit that definition?

Kaine Could Show Good Faith with a Traffic Study for Tysons Corner

One of very positive steps taken by Governor Tim Kaine was to embrace the new law requiring VDOT to conduct traffic studies on the impact of large development projects requiring rezoning. The law passed both houses of the General Assembly without dissent. Kaine signed it and ordered a study for a huge development in Loudoun County near Dulles Airport. The study, which was bungled by VDOT when it neglected to add in all of the new homes planned, still showed that more development would paralyze local and regional roads. VDOT is scheduled to release a revised study with corrections.

Some have criticized the VDOT study as failing to account for the new roads proffered by the developer. Others have wondered whether partisan politics played a role in the study since the GOP controls the Loudoun County Board.

The first criticism can be answered by improving the studies. They should include the impacts on existing and proposed facilities, but the differences should clearly be set forth. It is unacceptable to approve added development based on what is planned on paper. No growth without a concomitant increase in public infrastructure, with a fair contribution from proffers! Fairness needs to be defined from the perspective of taxpayers.

The second criticism can be addressed by the Governor directing VDOT to perform a similar study for the proposed development at Tysons Corner. We need to know the impacts of development on traffic before the Democrat-controlled Fairfax County Board makes any decisions. VDOT need not duplicate efforts; rather, it could work with the Tysons Corner Task Force, which was appointed by the Fairfax supervisors to study Tysons Corner. VDOT could ensure that no games are played by the County or the Task Force members.

If it is important for the Loudoun County Board to be kept honest with traffic and land use decisions, it is equally important for the Fairfax County Board to be held to the very same standard. Is Tim Kaine a sufficient statesman to move beyond party politics? Or does advancement of fellow Democrat Gerry Connolly's political career carry more sway with our Governor?

Similarly, by directing that an honest study be made, Kaine can show he puts the public interest above that of his big campaign supporters. Make no mistake about it, a thorough traffic study for Tysons Corner is likely to show that, even with the presence of the Silver Line, the rebuilding of Tysons as proposed by the landowners is likely to create a traffic disaster unmatched in Virginia history. Moreover, by making these facts known to the public before land use decisions are made, the Governor would be increasing the likelihood that the Fairfax BoS would not be able to approve those plans for development without starting another civil war. A decision by Kaine to play fair and square may well cost West Group and other big landowners hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in profit. Is our Governor willing to take this step? He should, simply to repay the many voters of both parties who supported him when he campaigned to rationalize development and existing resources. Whether he does, however, remains to be seen. Tim Kaine still talks a much better game than he plays.

The New Transportation Accountability Commission - Real Change or More Smoke?

Pardon me if I don't give Governor Tim Kaine a hurrah for his new Transportation Accountability Commission. It's not that I don't think this is a good idea, but the Governor's track record is full of good ideas, but lacks follow-through. The Governor has retreated from a number of his proposals in favor of defending the status quo. Is the TAC for real or is it more smoke designed to pacify those who want change, while Mr. Kaine continues to conspire with those who would retain the broken system?

A lot will depend on who the Governor names to the Commission. Will he name people who have called for changes, those who want to keep the system that they've learned to manipulate, or some combination of both? I submit that, unless a clear majority are very different than the usual "let's raise taxes so we can build more" crowd, nothing will change.

Will the TAC's proceedings and deliberations be open to the public? Or will this be one more area where the lobbyists can go to work and deliver results for their clients? Will the Governor insist that all measurement standards be set forth publicly and projects openly ranked and rated? Will all of these materials be posted on the Internet? Will the public be able to submit comments? Will the TAC be required to consider public input? Will the TAC be anything but an extension of Virginia's Good Old Boy/Girl Network?

Will the measurement standards, including the consideration of land use questions, apply across the board? Or will they just apply in places such as Loudoun County, where the BoS has a Republican majority? Will these measurements apply to Dulles Rail, where landowners have given big bucks to darn near everyone, but especially to Governor Kaine and Chairman Gerry Connolly? Will the TAC address the fact that, as proposed, the Silver Line provides no traffic relief, but will cost billions? Or is the Silver Line a sacred cow because of vested interests connected with Tysons Corner?

Probably the best test of the merits of Kaine's proposal, as well as whether the Governor is truly sincere about reform, is whether those who like today's system begin to strongly criticize the TAC. If the chambers of commerce, the NVTA, the land speculators, the CTB, Senator Chichester and his cronies, the Richmond & Fairfax lobbyists and the like begin to express displeasure because the TAC is servingthe public interest, the Governor may well be on to something -- what he campaigned and won election on. If we see the TAC's standards flunking big projects (e.g., the Western Bypass that just happens to run near where many acres are owned for development) in favor of intersection improvements, the construction of reversible lanes, or timing of all traffic lights in NoVA, the TAC would constitute true reform. If we see the TAC rerouting the Silver Line down the Dulles Toll Road, bypassing the properties of the big landowners and campaign contributors, because it's more cost effective, then Mr. Kaine will have delivered. If he delivers, he will be repaid with the public's trust, which will greatly outweigh the anger of the special interest crowd that wins by manipulating today's broken system.

But if all these folks like the TAC, it's a very good sign that Tim Kaine is just blowing smoke. I sure hope that this is for real.

Land Development & Zoning Fees - The Questions Fairfax County Wouldn't Answer

While we are on the subject of taxpayer-subsidized land development and zoning service fees, let's examine the County's failure or refusal to answer some questions from a local citizens group. Someone I know emailed me a copy of the budget questions asked by the McLean Citizens Association last spring and the County's answers to those questions. On the whole, the County did a reasonably good job of answering the questions. But in the area of taxpayer subsidies for the real estate industry, the County just did not answer all of the questions.

The citizens group's sixth question originally read as follows: "Please provide the rationale for setting land development service fees below their cost. Please identify any meetings between the county and any private party or group during which these fees were discussed, including an identification of the date(s) of such meeting, the identity of any county employees and private parties or group(s) attending such meeting(s)."

The County's answer included an amended question: "What is the basis for setting Land Development Fees at 90 percent of cost recovery?" Notice the differences?

Similarly, the McLean group's seventh question initially read: "Please provide the rationale for setting zoning service fees below their cost. Please identify any meetings between the county and any private party or group during which these fees were discussed, including an identification of the date(s) of such meeting, the identity of any county employees and private parties or group(s) attending such meeting(s)."

Again, the County reworded this question as follows: "What is the basis for setting Zoning Fees at 50 percent of cost recovery?" Again, editing occurred.

Why would the County purposefully refuse to answer reasonable questions about who met with county officials to discuss the establishment of below-cost fees? Moreover, the questions were rewritten as if the citizens group had asked quite different questions. Is this standard policy for the county to change the questions that they were asked?

The response was signed by Susan Datta, director of the Department of Management & Budget for Fairfax County. Was this an oversight? Did Ms. Datta direct that the questions be revised and not answered fully? Did someone higher than Ms. Datta make the decision not to answer these questions fully? What are county officials trying to hide? Who did they meet with to discuss where these fees were to be set? What is the county trying to hide? Another sweetheart deal?

Budget Crunch & Fairfax Taxpayers' Subsidies to the Real Estate Industry

With the slow-down in real estate, which some predict might even involve declining prices for Fairfax County homes, most everyone expects that the County's budget will bet tight next year. Chairman Gerry Connolly has warned the county and school staff that they can no longer count on double-digit tax revenue increases.

A good question is: whether anyone on the staff will take heed of this sound advice? After all, Connolly and his colleagues were largely and wrongly ignored by county staff when the supervisors adopted the program auditor's recommendations to reduce the number of county vehicles directly assigned to employees.

One area where most conservatives and liberals would likely agree is prime for budget cuts is taxpayer subsidies to the real estate business. Most conservatives oppose tax subsidies to business as wasteful and contrary to the concept of a free market. Most liberals tend to believe that tax revenues should be spent on traditional government programs and not on business subsidies.

Fairfax County offers taxpayer subsidies to the real estate industry in two major areas: one is the more than $6.5 million paid to fund the Economic Development Authority's advertising programs to bring more businesses and people to Fairfax County. In most areas of the U.S., businesses pay their own advertising directly or through the chamber of commerce. The second subsidy totals more than $43 million (fiscal 2003-fiscal 2007) for below-cost real estate development and zoning service fees.

The EDA should be defunded for incompetence alone. The EDA argues that bringing more businesses to Fairfax County takes pressure off residential real estate taxes. But the percentage share of county real estate taxes paid by commercial entities has fallen from the high 20s to the upper teens. This shows that campaign contributions mean more than real performance. Moreover, we have more jobs in Fairfax County than we do workers, such that people commute from all over the area to Fairfax County for work. Thus, Fairfax taxpayers are helping to find jobs for non-county residents.

At the very same time, some local businesses argue that we need to pay higher taxes to fund transportation so that all of these non-county residents can commute to and from Fairfax County each day. A very strong argument can be made that most of us, both county and non-county residents alike, would be better off were more of these good paying jobs located outside our area. We'd have less congestion on our roads, less of a need for tax increases, and people residing in the exurbs would have shorter commutes. All of these reasons support the elimination of taxpayer funding of the EDA's advertisements.

Similarly, there are no good public policy reasons for taxpayers to fund below-cost real estate development and zoning services, especially in a tighter budget era. The county argues that, by setting building permit fees slightly below cost, it encourages individuals to obtain county inspection of home projects. OK, but then let's set the rest of the fees at cost. If a party objects to a standard fee, the county could charge at time and materials.

The county also argues that it sets zoning fees below cost because neighboring counties do likewise. But those very same counties also set target proffers at levels that greatly exceed those set by Fairfax County. Indeed, in many areas such as parks and transportation, Fairfax County does NOT even have a target proffer. Thus, it seems that Fairfax County follows its neighbors only when the result is a sweetheart deal for the real estate industry, but ignores the neighbors' practices when they are stronger. We are back to government by campaign contribution.

If budget times are tough, let's eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the real estate industry. But don't hold your breath. We probably won't see relief unless and until the majority of the Fairfax supervisors are turned from office.

A Housing Price Drop - What if Moody's is Right?

Moody's Economy.com has released a report "Housing at the Tipping Point" that predicts 10-12% declines in real estate prices for Metro Washington, including Fairfax County. Moody's report suggests that, between the fourth quarter of 2005 and the second quarter of 2008, housing prices in our area are projected to decline a full 12%. Other big declines in prices are similarly forecasted for other hot housing markets around the U.S.

This report seems to contradict a recent prediction by the National Association of Realtors that the market has already hit bottom (without significant price decreases).

What happens if Moody's is correct? First, a significant number of people will be hurt economically. These include recent buyers, especially those who bought "up" and financed with creative mortgages; members of the real estate and construction industries; and local elected officials who have been spending like the proverbial drunken sailors as housing prices have been skyrocketing. Keep in mind that 2007 is an election year for the School Board and the Supervisors. Will Gerry Connolly propose an increase in the tax rate? Will assessments be largely flat or actually down? Will the School Board cooperate with Mr. Connolly, who I presume would do all in his power to avoid raising the tax rate? Lots of interesting questions.

Another group that could be affected significantly by a big housing slowdown is the illegal immigrant community, many of whom have come here to satisfy the demand for lower-skilled workers. (My purpose here is neither to attack or defend this group, but merely to raise some real issues that could well arise.) Will construction slow? What about the many other real-estate-related services where many of this group work? For example, landscaping and remodeling. What would be the impact on the many families in their native lands who rely on remittances from these workers? Will the illegal immigration stream slow? Will some workers return to their homes? What happens if the available work is substantially reduced, but the number of workers remains fairly constant or even increases? What if even more people arrive to compete for a diminished volume of work? Would crime and other social problems increase? Would there be an attempt, despite laws to the contrary, to extend social and economic benefits to people who are not here lawfully? If so, what would be the political fallout?

Just a few things to contemplate.

Who's Giving Liberals a Bad Name? - The Post, of Course!

The editorial writers from the Washington Post are starting to give liberals a bad name. Today's (10/3) half-witted editorial in favor of higher taxes for transportation proves the point. The latest rant fails to address just what taxpayers in Virginia would actually receive from higher taxes. The writers talk about money for roads and money for Metro, but they don't provide any specific benefits that would flow to taxpayers from the higher taxes. For example, would a billion in higher taxes mean that the Outer Loop of the Beltway would never have a Level of Service (LOS) worse than a D? Would the provision of a dedicated $50 million each year for WMATA mean no more four-car trains during rush hour or a penny reduction in the Fairfax County real estate tax? Reasonable people could evaluate whether the benefits outweighed the costs in these instances.

The Post's editors never address those type of issues. They presume that just taking more money from the private sector (our checkbooks) and sending it to the public sector is a good in and of itself, such that no further explanation is required.

This arrogant writing is an insult to the principled liberals in our community. Over the years, I've read and heard liberal arguments in favor of raising taxes, which have generally been coupled with some measurable goal. I've heard liberals call for tax increases to provide health insurance for X number of children. Or read tax increase pleas to reduce college tuition by Y% for a state's Z number of college students. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of these proposals, but it is refreshing to see a detailed proposal, with both costs and benefits articulated. A conservative can disagree with, but still respect, a well-thought-out and complete liberal plan for expanding government. This leads to reasoned public debate, which serves the public interest.

Not so with the Post's editorial writers. No explanation is required. The readers must simply accept the Post's truth as written. Their smug, but hollow, editorials are giving a bad name to liberals. But the Post's goal is not reasoned debate, but only higher taxes. What a shame for an otherwise good newspaper.

Whither Goest the Planning Commission?

This week, the Fairfax County Planning Commission (FCPC) will take up the massive rezoning request for the Tysons Corner shopping center. This request, if approved by the FCPC and the Board of Supervisors, would permit the landowner to add multiple high-rise buildings with new offices, retail, condos and a hotel to Tysons Corner. And more parking spaces than exist at the world's largest office building -- the Pentagon.

Despite the smoke being blown by the applicant, this is not a development by right. Rather, it is a request for rezoning. Moreover, the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should, therefore, be denied. The Comprehensive Plan does contemplate more density at Tysons Corner, but it also presumed that a significant number of transportation improvements would also have been made to the Beltway, Routes 7 and 123, as well as a number of other connected roads, before the density would be added. Guess what? The infrastructure improvements have never been made. The condition precedent for permitting added density does not exist. Therefore, the added density must not be granted.

As anyone who has ever had the misfortune of driving through or near Tysons during "rush hours" readily knows, the local road system cannot handle the existing density. Therefore, it would be insanity for the FCPC to approve this proposed rezoning that would add even more traffic. The public health, welfare and safety would be negatively affected should the rezoning be approved. It must be denied for this reason alone.

Moreover, the Board of Supervisors has created a citizens task force to study Tysons Corner and to recommend any changes to the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which includes the shopping center. This rezoning should not be granted until after the task force has completed its work. I have talked with several task force members, who have indicated that this group has not made up its collective mind as whether more density should be added to the area and, if so, how much and under what terms and conditions. The rezoning request should be denied or postponed until after the task force completes its work.

Common sense suggests and the public interest demands that the FCPC reject the rezoning request for the Tysons Corner shopping center. Will the Commission act in the public interest and deny the request?