A Dog with Five Legs

They Can't Really be that Dumb

2007-02-27T07:39:00.000-05:00

I've not written in a while -- laziness. But today's editorial in the Washington Post was either so dishonest or so stupid (or both) that I had to comment. The Post argues that because of the great transportation needs in NoVA, the GOP-lead General Assembly should have passed statewide tax increases.

Of course, any statewide tax increase results in Fairfax County residents sending dollars to Richmond in order to receive pennies back. Therefore, using the Post's logic, we would need to pay much more to improve our traffic mess with Kaine's approach than with the bill passed by the General Assembly.

How stupid are these people? Did anyone there ever taken a basic course in state and local government? Do these people ever read their own newspaper? Are they so liberal and committed to tax increases that facts are to be ignored? The money I save by not subscribing to the Post pays dividends daily.

Fairfax County Residents Are Their Own Worst Enemy

2007-02-05T17:05:00.000-05:00

This is a repeat of a post I put on Baconsrebellion.com. It says what needs to be said, so I'm repeating it here.

Fairfax, Arlington and Loudoun, but not Prince William, regularly get hosed on state support for K-12 education. For example, according to Senator Chichester's committee staff, the Warner-Chichester tax increases cost Fairfax County taxpayers 107.8 M (net) for 2005. According to FCPS, it received less than $14 M in new money. The schools did receive more than $100 M in 2005 from the State, but that was related to the biennial re-benchmarking of the SOQs. That would have occurred even without the tax increases. The new money above and beyond the SOQ changes was less than $14 M. I asked. Thus, it cost $107 M to get an additional $14 M.

I understand that the situations for Arlington and Loudoun were quite similarly bleak. Prince William, on the other hand, does better under the formula and, as a result thereof, Prince William's senators and delegates have not been interested in rocking the boat. Do you blame them?

The fault lies with the rubes that live in NoVA, especially Fairfax County. We may think that we are smart, successful and sophisticated, but RoVA plays us for fools.

Very few Fairfax County residents, including our crackerjack business community, have the knowledge and understanding of the rules of the game to be successful. We rant and rave about the bad deal we get from Richmond on education funding, but then lobby vigorously for more of the same. Just as with transportation, there are many people in Fairfax County who think that gremlins fill the General Fund, rather than Fairfax County residents. They ask for more money from Richmond without understanding that they receive only cents on the dollar. Unless the sophisticates in RoVA are willing to take less (ha, ha), it costs us "rubes" dollars to get pennies. Yet, the typical resident of Fairfax County would support higher state taxes to get pennies back, rather than higher local taxes that at least stay here.

The Warner-Chichester tax increases may have been good for Virginia, but they were a disaster for Fairfax County. The legislators who voted for them know this and should be ashamed of themselves. Fortunately, their constituents are hicks and won't hold them accountable.

Virginia is Late on Revised Cost Data for Silver Line

2007-01-30T07:34:00.000-05:00

The Federal Transit Agency (FTA), which controls the purse strings over the federal share of the Silver Line's funding, has indicated that the Commonwealth of Virginia is more than one month late in providing updated cost information for the project. The delay was disclosed in a letter to Congressmen Moran and Davis. The missing information is required before any final FTA funding decision can be made.

One possible explanation for the delay is that the Commonwealth is worried that the figures will not support federal funding. The project's earlier review concluded that the cost/benefit ratio for the multi-billion project was on the margin. Meanwhile, construction costs continue to escalate. Is the Governor's team scrambling to make cuts or find cost savings?

How about opening the project for bids? Why not return the route entirely to the Dulles Toll Road, with a single station for Tysons at Route 7? The landowners could then construct their own intra-Tysons circulator with light rail or buses.

Washington Post Ignores Fairfax County

2007-01-22T08:14:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post is doing a superb job exposing sweetheart deals between developers/landowners and government officials in Loudoun County. But how come the Post is silent as to those same relationships and deals in Fairfax County?

How much money has West Group and other big Tysons Corner landowners given Governor Tim Kaine & BoS Chairman Gerry Connolly, both of whom support the Silver Line boondoggle that will cost taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users billions and won't improve traffic congestion one bit? In fact, if the Silver Line triggers massive rezoning, we could see 500,000 to 600,000 additional vehicle trips daily. I suspect that the political party labels of the main players has a lot to do with the different reporting standards.

GOP corruption is bad; Democratic corruption is hidden. That's the journalism standards of the Post. Thank goodness for small local newspapers.

Lawsuit Challenging Transfer of Dulles Toll Road

2007-01-11T22:46:00.000-05:00

Reportedly, a lawsuit has been filed in Circuit Court in Richmond that challenges the transfer of the Dulles Toll Road to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. No other details were made available to me.

What Did the State Auditor Say about VDOT? (Part II)

2007-01-09T07:08:00.000-05:00

What else did the state auditor have to say about the massive problems with VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)?

"The Commonwealth lacks a statement of clear objectives regarding transportation plans. Most of the plans designed and implemented were in response to a specific problem rather than part of an intricate statewide plan with specific and measurable objectives. Specific objectives for improving the Commonwealth’s transportation system include providing a seamless transportation network throughout the state by improving interconnections between all transportation modes. Coordination between all Transportation agencies is an integral part to the future success of the Commonwealth’s Transportation system." Page 7.

Another serious defect exists that causes waste and inefficiency. Why should we pay higher taxes until these problems are fixed? Would an investment banker give funds to a company that had this type of problem? Certainly not. Why shouldn't taxpayers be equally well protected?

What Did the State Auditor Say about VDOT? (Part I)

2007-01-05T17:06:00.000-05:00

Governor Kaine, the loonies in the state Senate and the tax-happy crowd want us all to pay higher taxes for transportation. While I would agree we could use more money for transportation, there are a number of serious issues that should be addressed before Virginians pay higher taxes. Here's one of those problems.

VDOT has no internal cost controls. This is what the state auditor's December 2005 report had to say about this issue.

"Once the Board [the Commonwealth Transportation Board] completes and approves the SYIP [Six Year Improvement Plan], the Department uploads the plan into the Financial Management System (FMS). Project managers are to use the information provided by FMS to track project expenditures; however, the system does not provide any controls to prevent a project from exceeding its approved budget. Rather, it is the responsibility of individual project managers to ensure actual expenditures are within the approved budget. Transportation should consider the implementation of this type of budgetary constraint in the current upgrade of the Financial Management System." Page 9.

This is a very serious problem that results in wasted tax dollars. We should see a second audit to see the progress, if any, that VDOT has made before we pay higher taxes. Pouring more money into an agency that has no mechanism to control its cost is not good public policy.

A Lawsuit to Challenge the Transfer of the Dulles Toll Road to the MWAA?

2007-01-03T07:20:00.000-05:00

I've been hearing that some businesses are working to assemble a lawsuit challenging the transfer of the Dulles Toll Road to the MWAA. This transfer is being done to permit the MWAA to take control over the tolls (and to raise them) in order to fund the Silver Line. While most people would agree that the MWAA is an efficient entity, it has no direct accountability to any Virginia citizens. Moreover, many feel that Toll Road users and businesses not located in Tysons Corner will suffer both higher fees and worse transportation as the Silver Line is being used to enable the rezoning of Tysons Corner for the benefit of West Group and a few others.

I wonder whether the plaintiffs will call Gerry Connolly as a witness. After all, despite being a cheerleader for the Silver Line and his pals at West Group, Connolly has publicly expressed concerns over the lack of accountability over the MWAA. This could still become interesting.

Silver Line versus Schools

2006-12-31T07:30:00.000-05:00

I just skimmed FCPS' Capital Improvement Plan for 2008. It identifies a need for $1.9 billion in new capital investment to construct and, mainly, to remodel and update schools and related facilities. This is through 2016. It also notes that $1.3 billion has not been funded (i.e., bonded). Even by Fairfax County standards, this is a lot of money, especially for a school system that will not see increases in its total student population.

But can we afford not to keep our facilities current, safe and efficient? Wouldn't it be nice if we could actually have hot water at Longfellow Middle School?

Here's a serious question that Scott Monett and his Silver Line crowd should answer: What happens to the schools' capital needs when Fairfax County taxpayers are forced to fund cost-overruns for the construction of the Silver Line? Remember that's the big project that will cost billions, but not reduce traffic congestion.

Will we see a battle over funding West Group's train versus updating our schools? If not, why not?

Ramsey Pricing & Transportation Finance

2006-12-26T14:48:00.000-05:00

The local business community is rather fond of arguing that, because of our proximity to the federal government in Washington, this area will grow and grow. This might be a bit of an overstatement given the high costs of doing business here, the ever-deteriorating quality of life, the concern of the federal government about locating too many resources too close to area of possible terrorist attack, etc. But, in any event, this area will continue to grow.

We also hear the same people argue that we need more transportation facilities. Probably so -- although it would make good economic sense first to try to use what we have more efficiently. But we will probably continue to need more infrastructure.

How do we pay for it? Let's try Ramsey Pricing. Ramsey Pricing is "second-best" pricing, whereby classes of customers with inelastic demands pay a higher markup over marginal cost than those with more elastic demands. The basic goal of Ramsey Pricing is to recoup the fixed costs from those customers who have the fewest alternatives, while minimizing the distortion associated with prices in excess of marginal costs.

Fairfax County's best asset is probably its close proximity to Washington, D.C. Businesses with a desire to influence or sell to the federal government want to locate in or near the District of Columbia. Our second best asset is probably the fact that D.C.'s government charges higher taxes and is generally incompetent, while suburban Maryland also imposes higher taxes than Virginia (but, at least, is relatively competent).

Therefore, Fairfax County, indeed, Arlington, Alexandria and Falls Church, should impose new and substantial fees on commercial property, or at least, commercial property that is attractive to government contractors and lobbyists/trade associations. These groups want to be near Washington and will pay substantially higher rents/fees for the privilege. Those fees should be set just slightly below what is charged in Washington, D.C. and suburban Maryland. The proceeds should be used to fund local transportation.

Let's use Ramsey Pricing principles to fund some of our transportation needs. It makes good economic sense.

Merry Christmas to the Posters at baconsrebellion

2006-12-23T07:29:00.000-05:00

I offer my best wishes to the regular posters at baconsrebellion for the merriest of Christmases. Jim Bacon, Ray Hyde, Larry Gross, Ed Risse, NoVA Middle Man, Jim Wamsley, Gold H2O, and several others bearing the name "Anonymous." You've made me laugh, made me snarl, but most of all, made me think. I hope I've returned the favor.

Merry Christmas!

Kaine to Give Away Control over Dulles Toll Road

2006-12-20T07:25:00.000-05:00

The hottest rumor is that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will take advantage of the upcoming Christmas holiday, where most people are not watching public issues, to turn over control of the Dulles Toll Road to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). This would be done as a part of Kaine's effort to see road tolls raised to fund construction of the Silver Line.

While many people, including me, do not oppose this transfer in concept, there are too many unanswered questions. Both Republicans in the General Assembly and Democrat Gerry Connolly have also raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of the MWAA. Indeed, this entity has members from Maryland and D.C. on its board. Do we want nonresidents of Virginia making policy decisions about the Dulles Corridor?

All of the MWAA board members are appointed. How will they be held accountable to the residents of Virginia? I do not believe, but could be wrong, that basic "openness-in-government" laws apply to the MWAA. At a minimum, the MWAA should be subject to FOIA, Open Meetings (Sunshine) and other fundamental protections that ensure fair and open government. Also, who will oversee the ratemaking powers of the MWAA? What if it decides to set the tolls at $5? Who can regulate the MWAA?

Transfer of the Dulles Toll Road may be a good idea in the long run, but Governor Kaine should first address these fundamental issues being raised by Democrats and Republicans alike. He shouldn't make this transfer during the distractions of the Christmas holiday season.

Which is the Biggest Number?

2006-12-14T17:08:00.000-05:00

Which is the biggest number -- 580,000 or 626,000? The obvious answer is "626,000." But why am I asking what seems to be a stupid question?

The new proposed budget for WMATA states (p.10) that Metrorail reduces 580,000 car trips each day, which, in turn, benefits other commuters who drive. Sounds reasonable to me.

However, an informal study of the many proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for Tysons Corner estimates that, if the Silver Line is constructed and if the Fairfax County BoS approves the Plan amendments, we could expect to see an additional 626,000 car trips each day, in and around Tysons Corner. In other words, adding "density," "transit oriented development," "mixed use," etc. to Tysons Corner would likely put almost 8% more cars on roads in and around Tysons Corner than Metrorail takes off the roads throughout all of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland.

The informal study examined each and every proposed Plan amendment, assumed that the BoS would approve Floor Area Ratios of only 3.0 (three square feet of floor space for every one square foot of lot size), and extrapolated car trip data from the recent Plan amendment for the McLean Commons Apartments. The study then assumed that 20% of these potential car trips would be captured by the Silver Line, leaving an additional 626,000 car trips each day in and around Tysons Corner.

They study is conservative because many of the applications are seeking FARs that are higher than 3.0. It also assumed a "capture rate" that is higher than Gerry Connolly has been touting for the Silver Line. Therefore, we could see even more than 626,000 additional, daily car trips in the Tysons Corner area!

Spending billions to build a new rail line that will trigger rezoning approvals, which in turn will add more traffic to Tysons Corner than the entire Metrorail system takes off the roads today just seems foolish to me.

Dana Kaufmann & WMATA - Asleep at the Switch

2006-12-13T07:08:00.000-05:00

WMATA, the agency that operates Metrorail & Metrobus, is promising reduced service and higher fares. I suspect that the agency will also request higher taxpayer subsidies to boot.

WMATA wants to reimburse all of its employees' higher medical costs and give everyone a five percent raise. Then, of course, there are all of those settlements paid to "people injured by Metrobus." Where's the public oversight? Where's some consideration for the public interest?

In the real world, companies and nonprofits alike don't reimburse all of their employees' higher medical costs. Only government agencies do that. When times are tough, employee wages aren't increased at rates higher than inflation. In the real world, there are many times when employees don't receive any raise at all. How about contracting for more administrative and maintenance services? It happens regularly in the real world.

If specious claims are gnawing at the budget, WMATA leadership needs to fight for tort reform as hard as it seeks higher taxes each year. We should pay legitimate claims, but we aren't running a giveaway business.

Where's the WMATA Board's oversight? Instead of worrying about how it can persuade legislators to raise taxes for WMATA to waste, the Board's Bozos, including Fairfax County's Dana Kaufmann, should find ways to deliver better service and reduce costs at the same time. It happens regularly in the real world. But then, no one would ever accuse Kaufmann of living in the real world. He's asleep at the switch.

Dana Kaufmann should resign immediately from the WMATA Board. Virginia should chose its new representative by drawing middle schoolers' names from a hat. We'd get better results from an 8th grader chosen at random than from Kaufmann.

Democrats to Eliminate Earmarks - Will Moran & Webb Go After One for the Silver Line?

2006-12-12T07:06:00.000-05:00

As a fiscal conservative, I applaud the announcement by the new Democratic leadership in Congress to strip earmarks from the appropriations bills. As one who has lived in this area and dealt with the federal government for many years, I strongly suspect that this new anti-pork barrel "religion" will soon be dropped by the Democrats, just as it was by the Republicans. But I'll cheer any attempt to eliminate earmarks.

My big question is: Whether Congressman Jim Moran (D) and Senator-elect Jim Webb (D) soon be seeking an earmark for the Silver Line? Will they be true to principles of reform or heed the call of lobbyists and local government rummies for pork? As we know, earmarks are end-runs on a government system of checks and balances. We pay taxes and fees for transportation, but then expect the executive branch to apply standards set by the legislative branch to determine which specific projects are funded and which fall by the wayside. A decision not supported by facts should be subject to judicial review. Earmarks toss out the standards and fund projects based on successful lobbying. Earmarks damage citizen trust in government.

It's clear from Governor Kaine's decision not to support a tunnel for the Silver Line -- something that otherwise makes good sense -- that it is questionable whether the entire project will pass the federal government's cost/benefit test. Those old government standards again. The project may be so costly that the addition of a tunnel might well result in no funding from the federal government. In that event, the Silver Line's sponsors could forgo $900 M from the feds, make changes to reduce the costs (such as moving the line back to the Toll Road median where it was originally proposed), or try to get an earmark.

The recent election reduced Frank Wolf (R), Tom Davis (R), and John Warner (R) to minority party status. It elevated the Democrats, including Moran and newcomer Webb, to majority control. Thus, if the earmark-pork barrel approach is to be taken, it will be done by Democrats. Thus, the question is: whether Moran and Webb are really reformists or whether they too are earmark politicians?

West Group & Tom Sawyer -- Two Cases of Brilliance

2006-12-10T10:33:00.000-05:00

It behooves us all to recognize brilliance when we find it. Thus, I take off my hat to salute the sheer genius of West Group's public affairs team. Its performance is in a class with Tom Sawyer's whitewashing the fence.

We are all aware of the Mark Twain story of Tom Sawyer and the fence. Tom was ordered by his Aunt Polly to whitewash a long fence when he would have rather spent the Saturday with his friends having fun and adventures. Moreover, he feared that his friends would mock him for working on a beautiful day. Tom thought about trading his valuables for his friends' labor, but soon realized that the price would be too high. As we all know, as friends came along, Tom pretended that whitewashing the fence was the greatest thing he could do on the Saturday. Better than Ben Rogers' offer to go swimming. Tom's friends quickly bought into his agenda. Not only did they all take over Tom's work, but they also gave him valuable consideration for the privilege.

Sawyer was able to get his fence whitewashed without much of his labor and he obtained a large number of "valuables" to boot: part of an apple, a kite, " twelve marbles, part of a jew’s-harp, a piece of blue bottle-glass to look through, a spoon cannon, a key that wouldn’t unlock anything, a fragment of chalk, a glass stopper of a decanter, a tin soldier, a couple of tadpoles, a kitten with only one eye, a brass door-knob, a dog-collar-but no dog - the handle of a knife, four pieces of orange-peel, and a dilapidated window-sash."

Just as brilliant as Tom Sawyer is West Group's public affairs team. West Group needs an underground Metrorail through Tysons Corner to maximize the value of its landholdings. The Company probably felt secure that Governor Kaine would propose an underground line. But he didn't for fear of jeopardizing federal funding. Now the Company has enlisted local businesses and neighbors to carry its water.

West Group has persuaded many people that, in order to avoid an admittedly ugly elevated line through Tysons, they should champion the added costs for a tunnel that could jeopardize federal funding. Just as Tom Sawyer was able to obtain valuable consideration for the chance to do his job, so too may West Group be able to persuade citizens to pay higher taxes to make up for potential loss of federal funding. Also standing in the way of a tunnel is the behemoth Bechtel that has the existing fast track to build the elevated line if and when federal funding is approved. Given its success in marshaling business and citizen support, I would not be surprised to see West Group be able to persuade us to pay for a court fight with Bechtel. Keep in mind that all this is happening to build an expensive rail system that will likely result in even worse traffic congestion around Tysons Corner.

I truly believe that this is the work of very talented people. I salute the brilliance of West Group's public affairs team. You are one of the very best around.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

2006-12-08T07:28:00.000-05:00

This wonderful editorial photo was emailed to me. It speaks volumes.

Half-Witted Logic That Fairfax County Will Likely Accept

2006-12-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

As most readers know, the Macerich Co., owner of the Tysons Corner shopping mall, has proposed to withdraw part of its rezoning request to Fairfax County so that the impacts can be considered by the Tysons Corner Task Force, which was appointed by the BoS to plan Tysons Corner.

Opponents of the massive request that would add 3.5 M square feet of development to ring the existing mall have argued that it makes no sense for the Planning Commission and the BoS to consider the zoning changes until after the Task Force makes its recommendations. Nothing like prejudging a complicated set of policy decisions. It only makes sense for the Task Force to develop a proposal for all of Tysons Corner and for such a plan to go through the public review and approval process before ANY zoning decisions are made. What if the Task Force were to decide that Tysons Corner were already overdeveloped, such that adding 3.5 M square feet of new condos, offices and a hotel would was simply too much?

The Macerich group has decided to withdraw consideration of the the last two phases of a four-phase proposal until after the Task Force finishes its work. That would still propose about 2.5 M square feet to be approved before the county figures out what changes, if any, should be made to the Comprehensive Plan for Tysons. Duh!

It is totally illogical to split the "baby" in half so to speak. This is no compromise. We need to let the Task Force complete its work and make its recommendation to the BoS and the residents of Fairfax County before the Planning Commission decides anything about upzoning requests for Tysons. The logic does not support splitting the baby. Macerich's argument is half-witted and flawed. It should be rejected out of hand. However, this is Fairfax County where campaign contributions speak lounder than facts and analysis. Here's betting the Planning Commission approves Macerich's "half-a-baby" proposal. But then no one would ever confuse anyone on the Fairfax County Planning Commission or the BoS for King Solomon.

The Phrase "We Need to Fix Transportation" Makes Me Gag

2006-12-05T13:58:00.000-05:00

Every few months, we hear people who should know better mouth the phrase "we need to fix transportation." That makes me gag.

I'm not arguing that NoVA's transportation network is anything but a disaster. I won't argue that there's nothing we could do to make any improvements. I won't even argue that VDOT doesn't need more funds.

I do submit, however, that "we need to fix transportation" is meaningless gibberish that should be translated "if we could raise taxes and build more roads, we could increase real estate development." Wasn't that what the failed 2002 sales tax referenda were all about?

We need to flush this phrase and substitute some meaningful and measurable statements about what tangible benefits spending $X millions, $Y tens of millions, or $Z hundreds of millions will produce for specific projects. Even saying "we'll add a lane to Route 7 in each direction between the Dulles Toll Road and the Fairfax County Parkway" doesn't tell the taxpayer what she or he will receive.

We do need to know what specific improvements would be made, but also what level of improvement, if any, in traffic conditions would result from the investment. For example, if spending $75 million improves busy hour LOS from F to C, that might well be a good investment of tax dollars. On the other hand, if spending the same $75 million makes no measurable improvement in LOS -- F stays F -- because the wider road would enable more development, which, in turn, would generate more traffic, maybe we'd be better off by keeping the $75 million for other projects and simply declining to grant permission to build the extra houses, etc. (Remember that local governments in Virginia have much more authority over land use decisions than they like us to know.)

We need more and more honest disclosure about transportation projects, including statements about what they would and would not produce in terms of measurable results.

Undoing Proffers

2006-12-01T07:39:00.000-05:00

I happened to watch the Fairfax County Planning Commission meeting last night on cable TV. Even I thought this was a strange way to spend my time. However, I am glad that I did.

The meeting included a discussion of an application by a builder to amend its proffers. It seems that the original proffers for the rezoning included a restriction that no decks could be built closer than 15 feet from any lot line. This made sense apparently because the new development would contain approximately 3.6 dwellings per acre. That is dense housing that requires protection of neighbors' privacy and security interests. This commitment was a part of the "deal" between the developer, the county, the neighbors and the rest of the residents of Fairfax County.

However, it seems that several homeowners in this community later applied for, and received, building permits to construct decks that exceeded the size permitted by the proffers. Some decks extended to within five feet of lot lines. Even later, several other homeowners sought building permits to construct similar decks, but were rejected because the county realized that the proffers prohibited them. Thus, we have some homeowners with illegal decks and others who cannot build the same deck as their neighbors. The developer has now proposed to amend its proffer to permit decks within 5 feet of a lot line.

The Planning Commission was unable to reach a decision and deferred the matter for one week. This is a mess! There are equitable arguments on both sides of this issue. A homeowner who followed the rules and obtained a building permit for deck has likely spent thousands of dollars. Should those decks be torn out? Other homeowners seemingly want to build similar decks, but cannot. Is that fair? What about a resident who doesn't want his/her next door neighbor's deck in clear view and expected at least 15 feet of privacy and security protection? Does such person have no rights?

But the issue of proffers goes beyond the immediate homeowners. The proffers are part of a bargained social contract between the developer and the county, acting on behalf of its citizens. The developer received permission to build more densely and to make greater profits in exchange for some promised behaviors. The developer received benefit, but the residents of the county are being denied theirs in return. While this dispute is just about decks, it is still symptomatic of the larger problem -- no one monitors whether proffer and other zoning conditions are being met. Who is protecting the public interest by ensuring that proffers conditions are met? To their credit, several commissioners expressed concern about this problem. Also, there are no quick fixes, but action is needed.

Will the Planning Commission escalate this problem to the BoS? Will the BoS act? Will our supervisors spend less time trying to promote more development in the county and more time making sure that development occurs in compliance with all zoning and proffer conditions? This situation is simply not acceptable. We need action now.

Fairfax County's Program Auditor - One Office That Works

2006-11-30T06:56:00.000-05:00

John Adair, Fairfax County's program auditor, reporting to the BoS, is one unsung hero. The last time I checked, John had but a three-person staff, including himself. A new WaPo story indicates that the Office has been working to identify and remedy county employee thefts of gasoline and diesel fuel. The story indicates that, possibly, as many as 75,000 gallons could have been stolen. At $3 per gallon, that's $225,000 -- hardly equivalent to taking home paper clips or making unauthorized use of a county copier for one's daughter's school report. This is serious, big-time theft.

John's office has also been involved investing other thefts and embezzlements. They proposed the plan to reduce the size of the county motor vehicle fleet -- which has been flouted by employees, including county sheriff Stan Berry (shame on you) and worked with Gerry Connolly and the other supervisors to solve with vendors that have failed to deliver the goods.

This is one county office that pays for itself many times over. The office was created a number of years ago at the behest of citizen groups, including the McLean Citizens Association.

Supervisor Dana Kauffman -- West Group's Lackey Boy

2006-11-26T09:09:00.000-05:00

Fairfax County Supervisor Dana Kauffman (D-Lee) has written a letter in support of the multi-billion Silver Line boondoggle that shows that he, along with most of his colleagues, are lackeys for West Group and the other big Tysons Corner landowners. His letter is available at www.tysonstunnel.org/images/pdfs-articles/DanaKauffman_Letter.pdf

The letter argues for taxpayer funding of a tunnel for the Silver Line through Tysons Corner. Standing alone, a tunnel is better option than the elevated track. But the tunnel does not stand alone. It is part of a multi-billion dollar construction project that does not provide any significant traffic relief. See my post for September 6, 2006. What it will do, however, is permit Kauffman and his colleagues to grant West Group and the other big Tysons Corner landowners rezoning, which, in turn, will bring them billions in windfall profits. Needless to say, Kauffman's letter does not address the traffic issue. Good lackey boy, Dana!

Kauffman argues that the tunnel is "a real, economically justifiable option." However, he does not address the fact that the cost projections for the entire project are several years old and, given the high rate of inflation in construction costs, totally out of date and too low. Needless to say, Kauffman's letter does not address the inflation issue or who will pay those added costs. Good lackey boy, Dana!

Next Kauffman complains that Congressmen Davis and Wolf have failed to override the Federal Transit Agency's cost-benefit guidelines to fund the Silver Line regardless of the facts. Kauffman implicitly argues that the new Democratic Congress will override the FTA's standards. I thought the Democrats campaigned against earmarks! Shouldn't the federal government limit spending to projects that provide benefit, rather than fund those supported by lobbyists? Needless to say, Kauffman's letter does not address the influence-peddling issue. Good lackey boy, Dana! Or should we start calling you "Dana DeLay Kauffman"?

Then Kauffman argues that, because the Silver Line plan's have reincluded facilities for disabled access that were previously eliminated to meet the FTA's cost-benefit standards, adding the costs for a tunnel would not cause a problem. Kauffman's lack of logic is staggering here. The removal of the facilities for disabled access to meet cost-benefit standards, which is both repulsive and illegal, shows how desperate the Silver Line's sponsors are to deliver the goods for West Group, et al. The likely truth of the matter is that Governor Kaine looked at the facts and determined that, given the high level of inflation in construction costs, the marginal benefit to traffic congestion, it was touch and go that the project would pass the FTA's test -- even without a tunnel. Needless to say, Kauffman's letter does not adequately address this issue either. Good lackey boy, Dana!

Supervisor Kauffman adds the frosting to his letter by saying: "We owe it not only to ourselves but to our children to stop making shortsighted decisions. Now, more than ever, the project must be put to bid with a fair review of the tunnel option." If Kauffman were not West Group's lackey boy, he would have called for a review of the entire project that demanded taxpayers receive a Silver Line proposal that resulted in traffic congestion improvement, met FTA cost standards and put the burden of paying for cost-overruns on West Group and the other big Tysons Corner landowners that benefit from this project. But then, Kauffman would be taking care of the public interest and not that of his master, West Group. Good lackey boy, Dana!

Virginia's Economy is Too Dependent on Defense and Homeland Security Spending.

2006-11-24T06:57:00.000-05:00

The state Senate Finance Committee just held a retreat for its members. That's a good thing, IMO. Staff reports indicated that the state's economy continues strong, but it is slowing. First quarter collections from personal income tax withholding and sales tax are lower. Non-withholding revenues (estimated tax payments) that come mainly from small business owners are slowing also. Needless to say, proceeds from the real estate industry are down substantially, especially in the area of the state recording tax. (But then, it's fair to say that the real estate boom pushed those revenues into windfall territory. It's time for an adjustment.)

Here's Virginia's previous strength that is now becoming a liability. "Virginia’s reliance on federal spending has increased. - Homeland security spending is leveling off and wartime defense contracts will eventually follow the same course." (Interestingly, I suspect that many of the people who earn their livings with these "hard government" contracts voted for Jim Webb, who gave the "soft government" Democrats a US Senate majority. But that's a subject for the future.) The state Senate Finance Committee sees the big growth in federal spending for Virginia slowing.

The report continues: "Signs of a softening economy, especially in the housing market and federal spending, may be more apparent this time next year as you begin to craft the 2008-10 budget."

"Fewer discretionary dollars will be available than in recent years. To the degree that discretionary funds are available, caution should be exercised to: - Avoid expanding obligations; - Avoid partially funding initiatives with major outyear costs; and - Continue to employ volatile, hard-to-project revenues for one-time uses."

What do people think this means? IMO, Governor Kaine's big, expansive plans to fund pre-school education are dead.

What about the Other Tunnel?

2006-11-20T07:58:00.000-05:00

The good people at tysonstunnel.org are making one last push for a tunnel for the Silver Line through Tysons Corner. They argue that the tunnel would be affordable and offer to perform some engineering studies to back-up their position.

They should also examine the costs for digging a second tunnel under the Potomac River to accommodate the added trains. The existing tunnel, which carries both Orange and Blue Lines, is essentially at capacity today. Even with the rerouting of some Blue Line trains across the Yellow Line bridge (which, of course, degrades Blue Line service for many Virginians who will need to cross over to D.C., rather than simply travel through Rosslyn), the tunnel will not likely be able to handle the added traffic. A second Potomac River crossing will soon be needed. What will it cost? Who will pay?

Don't expect any answers -- until it's too late.

Transferring Risk to Taxpayers is Wrong

2006-11-17T06:19:00.000-05:00

America just lost one of its best thinkers - economist Milton Friedman just died at age 94. Friedman was a passionate believer in free markets. I agree with him. But free-markets are not just free of excess government regulations. They are also free from government subsidies.

We need to end government subsidies of the commercial real estate market in Fairfax County. Today, real estate firms are building new commercial space that is not pre-leased on the hopes that the defense & homeland security contracting booms will continue and on the trust that Fairfax County taxpayers will continue to subsidize advertising for companies and new residents to come to our already overcrowded community.

Betting on future demand is consistent with a free market. But so is acceptance of the risk that the demand will not come or will trickle in slowly. It seems pretty clear that the new Congress will slow the rate of growth in government contracting that has fueled NoVA's economy. That means less demand for real estate. Lower rents and lower earnings. It should not mean that taxpayers must pay for their advertising. Let's end the subsidies to real estate by defunding the Fairfax County Economic Development Authorities advertising budget. Let the commercial real estate business fund its own advertising. Let the risks of business fall go with those who would reap its rewards,

Downzoning - Part III (Tysons Corner)

2006-11-14T22:13:00.000-05:00

Would it make sense for the typical resident of Fairfax County for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a new Comprehensive Plan for Tysons Corner that included some level of downzoning? I suspect that, if they thought about it from a purely analytical perspective, the supervisors would not increase density at Tysons Corner, but would decrease it. Since Gerry Connolly has received more than $160,000 in campaign contributions from the real estate industry, I doubt that facts and analysis will play much of a role. But if they did, a rational BoS would likely conclude that the level of existing buildings and those already approved exceed the capacity of our infrastructure to support them. A sensible person would not vote to add more people and cars that would choke the area to death. Ten sensible supervisors would most assuredly vote to downzone the area.

If we already have more jobs at Tysons than can be filled by local residents, adding new jobs in that location means even more people will commute to the area. Why should existing businesses and residents suffer further degradation in their quality of work and life so that people living outside the county can drive to and from Tysons? The added tax revenues won't pay for the costs of the infrastructure. County data show that, despite the huge building boom and a much lower office vacancy rate, the percentage of real estate taxes paid by commercial properties is at its lowest level in many years. The rate is around 17.3% and has dropped for six or seven years straight. This is a situation where taxpayers loose money on every new building, but make it up on volume.

It is certain that builders will construct some very nice new condos at Tysons, but it is equally true that those units will be very expensive. Land costs are high; construction material costs are going up much faster than inflation; and the cost of constructing any building above three or four stories is excessively expensive. In sum, the builders cannot afford to construct any housing that does not carry a high price tag. Proffers in the range of 8% affordable housing units won't permit worker housing. Only executives, professionals and middle management would likely be able to afford to live at Tysons. The rest of the workers must still commute. Moreover, Census Bureau data show that most people don't want to live in dense, urban locations. They want single family homes. Expensive, dense housing at Tysons will not meet the needs of many people.

The roads cannot handle today's traffic, and the Commonwealth states that the Silver Line will not reduce traffic volumes. Why would anyone want to add traffic to Tysons?

The current crop of supervisors regularly puts the interests of developers and large landowners ahead of those of small business and ordinary citizens. Fairfax County does not even attempt to collect sufficient proffers to construct the infrastructure necessary to support additional people. It won't happen at Tysons.

Under these circumstances, the average resident of Fairfax County would be best served if the BoS were to reject any requests for more density at Tysons and amend the Comprehensive Plan to take away density for those locations where new construction has not started or plans been improved. Let's downzone Tysons Corner.

Silver Line Tunnel Meeting -- Honest Discussion or Thick PR - Bet on the Latter

2006-11-13T07:10:00.000-05:00

Wednesday evening (11/15) at 7 pm, the ad hoc tysonstunnel.org is holding a community meeting on its last-ditch effort to resurrect a tunnel for the Silver Line at Tysons Corner. The big question in my mind is: Whether the meeting will be an honest discussion of the complicated issues associated with the construction of heavy rail or whether it will be thick with PR?

At one level, it is impossible to disagree with Scott Monnett, McLean Chamber chief, who is pushing the tunnel. A tunnel would be more aesthetically pleasing than the ugly old elevated track. A tunnel would also last longer and could present fewer traffic nightmares during construction. But those factors do not address the more important questions: Why are we spending billions on the Silver Line without receiving traffic congestion relief? Will the added costs for constructing a tunnel kill federal funding because the project would clearly fail the mandatory cost/benefit test? Given the huge inflation in construction costs, just what would it cost to build the Silver Line with or without the tunnel? Who will pay for the added costs to build the tunnel, along with the certain future cost overruns?

I doubt that those questions will be addressed. That's not the Fairfax County way. What a shame!

We need honest and thorough answers, not more PR. We need to see data, not hear from lobbyists. I don't expect much from this meeting beyond PR spin. If you have other things to do on Wednesday evening, do them, rather than attend the tysonstunnel.org meeting.

Silver Line Supporters Hinting Residential Real Estate Tax Hike Will be Needed

2006-11-11T07:33:00.000-05:00

Tunnel or no tunnel, escalating costs for materials likely means that construction of the Silver Line will cost much more than the projected $4 B. (That's a lot of money for no traffic relief.) With the federal and special tax district shares limited, that certainly means a residential real estate tax hike to pay for construction. Actually, it will be more than one tax hike as the project is built over time.

Silver Line supporters have moved from their less-than-honest position that the project will be built on budget. They have started to drop hints that additional funds must come from the Fairfax County general fund. Well guess who puts money into that account? Real estate taxpayers, the bulk of whom are individual residents of the county.

One alternative might be "tax increment financing" where only tax revenues from increased valuations within the specific area to be served by rail would go to pay for Metro's excess construction costs. Apparently, however, the business community doesn't like this approach. Since the Connolly Administration represents "government by campaign contribution," expect this wish to be carried out with all due speed. Remember that Gerry has previously worked for the West Group companies and now works for another big Tysons landowner, SAIC. Expect to see your taxes raised to benefit a few big campaign contributors.

What's the difference between Gerry Connolly and Tom DeLay? Gerry's still in office!

Downzoning - Part II (Tysons Corner)

2006-11-09T07:17:00.000-05:00

Now that we have established downzoning is permissible under Virginia law (even in Fairfax County, Mr. Connolly), let's examine whether it should be considered for Tysons Corner. Yes, rather than add density, should the existing density be reduced?

As our Supreme Court indicated, downzoning should not be undertaken on a whim. As the judges said in the Snell case, "The Virginia landowner always confronts the possibility that permissible land use may be changed by a comprehensive zoning ordinance reducing profit prospects; yet, the Virginia statutes assure him that such a change will not be made suddenly, arbitrarily, or capriciously but only after a period of investigation and community planning." The BoS has appointed the "Tysons Task Force" from a cross-section of county residents. They have been meeting for well over a year to study and discuss land use at Tysons. We have established a prima facie case that we are satisfying the concerns of the court as to deliberation.

The Task Force must consider the impact of any growth at Tysons on public infrastructure. To do otherwise would be to neglect its responsibility to the county and its residents. Key, but not exclusive, to this analysis is traffic, transit and road capacity. It is very likely that the data and analysis would conclude that the existing size of Tysons Corner without building a single new structure, whether by right (as it would conform to the existing Comprehensive Plan) or by request for either rezoning within the Comprehensive Plan, as is being requested for Tysons I, or by amending the Plan, as is being sought by many landowners, overwhelms the capacity of the existing transportation infrastructure. In more blunt language, we cannot handle what we have today.

If the existing roads cannot handle the existing number of automobiles, why add more to the mix? Moreover, we already know that adding the multi-billion dollar Silver Line does not fix the traffic problem. Absent a solution to the traffic problem, adding any more buildings to Tysons Corner would have a negative impact on the public health, safety, or welfare. According to state law, the county is permitted (and morally required) not to take action that would have a negative impact on such concerns. Would we find it acceptable for the BoS to eliminate the requirement that children have already received certain vaccinations before entering school? Of course not. That would harm the public health, safety, or welfare.

So why is traffic any different? It's not. Fairfax County would have ample evidence not only to deny Plan amendments and rezoning applications, but also to amend the existing plan with downzoning. The legal case is solid. Later, I'll discuss the policy issues. It may be lawful to downzone Tysons Corner, but would it also be a wise thing to do?

Watch the Push for another Big Earmark for the Silver Line

2006-11-08T07:16:00.000-05:00

The great thing about the U.S. is that the voters always get the final say. Some of my votes were on the winning side, while others lost. But people voted for change yesterday. They are sick of their elected officials listening first and foremost to lobbyists.

We need lobbying reform. While I don't expect the Democrats in Congress to do any better than the GOP on this issue, I'm willing to give them the chance. One of the first places for reform is to reduce earmarks substantially. No more big funding for special projects in appropriations bills.

This includes the ongoing attempt by the big Tysons landowners through the McLean Chamber of Commerce and tysonstunnel.org to run around the Federal Transit Authority's cost-benefit rules to get an earmark for the construction of a big and expensive tunnel through Tysons for the Silver Line. If the tunnel supporters can demonstrate that the tunnel would cost no more than the elevated line and provide adequate assurances that residential taxpayers would not foot the bill for the project that does not improve traffic congestion, more power to them. But that is unlikely. What many fear is that they are really seeking an earmark. That's wrong whether done by Republicans or by Democrats. Let's hope that all elected officials let the process work. No Silver Line earmark.

Downzoning Is Permitted under Virginia Law - Part I

2006-11-07T07:06:00.000-05:00

The law in Virginia is what our Supreme Court says it is; it's not what Gerry Connolly says in his regular attempts to tread the thin line between keeping his two groups of constituents -- developers and ordinary citizens -- happy. The former want more and more density, and the latter want protection against development that drives the quality of life down and taxes up!

I've heard Gerry Connolly (and other elected officials, for that matter) claim that the Dillon Rule ties his hands. He has no authority but to approve zoning requests. Not so, Chairman Connolly, not so. The Virginia Supreme Court says that, with appropriate findings, county supervisors have the legal authority to downzone, even in this Dillon Rule state.

The leading case is Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Snell Construction Corp., 214 Va. 655, 202 S.E.2d 889 (1974). That case involved an attempt by our supervisors to downzone an individual parcel of land from what was permitted in the Comprehensive Plan for Annandale. In this instance, the court rejected the downzoning because "since enactment of the prior ordinance there has been no change in circumstances substantially affecting the public health, safety, or welfare, the burden of going forward with evidence of such mistake, fraud, or changed circumstances shifts to the governing body. If the governing body produces evidence sufficient to make reasonableness fairly debatable, the ordinance must be sustained. If not, the ordinance is unreasonable and void." Fairfax County failed to make this showing, such that the court determined the Board's actions unlawful.

However, our Supreme Court made it clear that: the revision of a Comprehensive Plan for a specific area of a county CAN include DOWNZONING; and, with the proper showing, even an individual parcel CAN be DOWNZONED. The Dillon Rule is not a barrier.

The case states that downzoning, as a part of a revision of a Comprehensive Plan, “is presumed to be valid so long as it is not unreasonable and arbitrary. The burden of proof is on him who assails it to prove that it is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that it bears no reasonable or substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The court will not substitute its judgment for that of a legislative body, and if the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is fairly debatable it must be sustained.”

Moreover, had Fairfax County demonstrated that, since the Comprehensive Plan for Annandale was adopted by the supervisors, there had been a "change in circumstances [that] substantially affecting the public health, safety, or welfare," even a single parcel of land could lawfully be downzoned.

The following paragraph from the Snell case summarizes the law: "Under the private enterprise system, land use is influenced by the profit motive. Profit flows from investments of time, talent, and capital. Landowners venture investments only when the prospects of profit are reasonable. Prospects are reasonable only when permissible land use is reasonably predictable. The Virginia landowner always confronts the possibility that permissible land use may be changed by a comprehensive zoning ordinance reducing profit prospects; yet, the Virginia statutes assure him that such a change will not be made suddenly, arbitrarily, or capriciously but only after a period of investigation and community planning."

Thus, it is very clear that the Dillon Rule does not tie Chairman Connolly's hands on land use matters as he suggests. His attempt to reward campaign contributors, while appeasing the rest of us, is dishonest and cynical.

A Thumb on the Scale - Zoning Subsidies in Fairfax

2006-11-06T08:32:00.000-05:00

I strongly believe in markets. When no one has a thumb on the scale, the free market tends to produce better results than government decision-making in the economic realm. Generally, most people, be they Republicans or Democrats, tend to agree. However, there clearly is role for government to play in policing markets against fraud. What government should not do, however, is place a big thumb on the scale to favor (or disfavor) market participants.

Needless to say, Fairfax County puts a big thumb on the market scale in the area of taxpayer subsidies for the real estate industry. In addition to the $6.8 M annual subsidy for the Economic Development Authority's advertising program that benefits commercial real estate, county taxpayers subsidize land development and zoning services. From July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, taxpayers will have paid more than $43 M in subsidies for these services. Granted, state law prohibits local governments for setting these fees above cost, but it does not require a huge subsidy. Indeed, the Spotsylvania County board of supervisors has set their fees at cost.
What's the difference? In Fairfax County, we have Gerry Connolly and his colleagues and their government by campaign contribution. Apparently, in Spotsylvania County, elected officials make an attempt to govern in the public interest. Move over Chicago and New Jersey, Fairfax County's corruption is on the rise.

Isn't it time to get government's thumb off the real estate market scale?

Why Can't the Press Move beyond Tax Increases on Transportation?

2006-11-03T11:03:00.000-05:00

The area press, including my favorite local papers, simply cannot see beyond their liberalism -- increased government spending and taxes solves problems. This is especially true with respect to the transportation issue in Virginia. That just doesn't cut it! We need more complex thinking and reporting. Let's consider the following.

Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed construction of the Inter-County Connector (ICC) highway in Maryland. They argue that the D.C. Metro's air quality problems would be exacerbated by the construction of a major new highway and, thus, the road is unlawful, as proposed. I'm sure that there are good arguments in opposition to that position.

But let's assume for the moment that the environmental groups are correct. What if the air quality laws would not permit construction of the ICC? It's not rocket science. If a major new road could not be built lawfully in Suburban Maryland, a major new road could not be built lawfully in Northern Virginia either. If the ICC cannot be constructed, why would any reasonable, thinking person (that excludes lobbyists, of course) believe that an outer beltway segment could be built?

If we cannot lawfully build any major roads or add substantial capacity to existing ones (except, perhaps, HOT or HOV lanes), why should NoVA legislators vote for a transportation tax increase? If we pay more in NoVA, but don't get to use most of the proceeds from a tax increase, aren't we just increasing the amounts of subsidies we send around the state?

Again, I'm not ready to concede that the Maryland lawsuit would necessarily be successful. But if NoVA residents, including the press and elected officials, care one bit about how our tax dollars are spent, shouldn't we be asking these questions now? Before the General Assembly meets? Shouldn't someone be asking Governor Kaine and the tax-happy senators from both parties to explain this issue? Can't we have some editorial writers move beyond knee-jerk liberalism and the automatic support of tax increases and more spending? Might ordinary citizens and business executives think before they react?

What is the relationship of federal air quality issues and transportation in NoVA?

2006-11-02T19:27:00.000-05:00

Web Site Counter

Safety - Another Issue for the McLean Chamber to Answer

2006-11-01T11:14:00.000-05:00

The McLean Chamber of Commerce is supporting a Tysons Corner tunnel for the Silver Line. The group's affiliate has scheduled a public meeting for November 15 at the McLean Community Center. That's a positive step if the meeting goes beyond PR and addresses the real issue, including those raised by tysonstunnel.org. The Five-Legged Dog has previously suggested three questions that should be addressed by the Chamber.

Here is one more. The press reports that the National Traffic Safety Board has just released a finding that Boston's Big Dig tunnel, which collapsed earlier killing a motorist, was "designed with a smaller margin of safety than other tunnel ceilings in America." The engineers failed to design sufficient redundancy into the tunnel's fasteners for the heavy concrete blocks. There was no backup for a fastener failure. The result was an unnecessary death.

Hopefully, this would not occur with the proposed Tysons Tunnel. But, realistically, the tunnel's (and, indeed, the entire Metro expansion's) supporters are faced with severe pressure to reduce costs. The current proposal has seen scaled-back features, including the critical pedestrian bridges. Given this existing tendency to cut corners, the strong inflation in construction costs, and the desire of some supporters to build the Silver Line at any cost, we need to be concerned about safety.

One would hope that the Chamber would address this issue at its November 15 meeting with more than mere words.

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

2006-10-31T07:22:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-29T09:24:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-27T07:50:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-26T07:18:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-25T07:13:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-24T07:29:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-10-23T07:41:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-20T07:26:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-18T15:28:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-16T11:08:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-14T10:37:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-13T08:44:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-12T07:32:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-10-10T21:52:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-09T17:15:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-08T11:35:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-10-05T17:37:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-10-03T18:04:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-10-02T16:11:00.000-04:00

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?

Mr. Guernsey's Trucks

2006-09-30T14:56:00.000-04:00

David Guernsey, a local Fairfax County businessman who sells envelopes and other office products around the region, is angry because the Virginia General Assembly did not agree to raise taxes for transportation. Apparently, the traffic congestion is causing problems for him and his colleagues. Mr. Guernsey complains, for example, that he was forced to build a second distribution center in Beltsville, MD to service customers. He keeps his delivery trucks on both sides of the Potomac now.

He also complains that it's become more difficult to make deliveries or to have deliveries made to his operations in Chantilly. Finally, Mr. Guernsey bemoans the fact that many businesses are having a hard time persuading people to move here. The quality of life seems to be deteriorating. His solution -- raise taxes on you, me and the gal behind the tree. He's also planning to give campaign contributions to people who will raise those taxes.

Well Mr. Guernsey, there are many other factors that you seem to ignore. One obvious tool to address congestion that our neighbors in Maryland use is to authorize local governments to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances. Those laws defer growth where the roads, schools, parks, libraries, sewers, etc., are insufficient to handle the added growth. Perhaps, had those laws been in effect in Virginia, we wouldn't have as bad of traffic jams as we do. Or, as often occurs with APFOs, the developers and builders construct, or pay for the construction of, the necessary public facilities. Either way, things would be better in Virginia without raising taxes.

I've never met Mr. Guernsey, but I'll bet you that he would likely respond by arguing that APFO hurt economic growth. They stop necessary development. But I'd retort that he just built a distribution center in Maryland -- a place with APFO. He built because he needed to serve a market and felt he could do so profitably even with the added costs. By imposing an APFO, Maryland likely received contributions towards public infrastructure from Mr. Guernsey's company or from his landlord and it also obtained new jobs that were in Virginia. Sounds like a winner for Maryland residents and it did not require a tax increase.

Mr. Guernsey also ignores various traffic management tools that could be used. For example, we could reduce traffic congestion measurably by getting trucks off the road during prime commuting time. Virginia could, for example, adopt congestion pricing for trucks using interstate highways and primary roads during rush hours. Companies like Mr. Guernsey's could then either pay extra fees to drive these roads during rush hours or move deliveries to before or after commuting time. Perhaps, he could discount his prices for early or late deliveries. I'm sure that, if his company could not adapt to this change, others, such as Staples, Office Depot or WalMart, would find a way to adjust prices and make a profit. The use of congestion pricing would help improve traffic flow and it wouldn't require a tax increase.

What I really found absurd about Mr. Guernsey's remarks was his complaint that people should pay higher taxes because Mr. Guernsey and other business operators are having trouble recruiting people to work in this area. If you are having trouble hiring good people, you need to pay them more or start moving operations to a less-expensive area. A very strong economic case can be made that we would be better off if more good-paying jobs were located in places such as Fredericksburg, Warrenton, Culpeper, etc. We'd have less congestion on our roads and many workers' commuting times would be reduced. I suspect, however, that Mr. Guernsey might sell fewer envelopes and copiers if more jobs were located outside this area. But it's hardly a reason for us to pay higher taxes to help Mr. Guernsey's business.

I could go on and on. He failed to address VDOT's lack of cost controls, the fact that we fund roads based on who can best lobby the CTB, Fairfax County fails to negotiate and collect sufficient cash proffers for roads, we are spending more than $4 billion to build the Silver Line that does not reduce traffic congestion. The bottom line is that many things could be done that would make traffic improvements but that do not require a tax increase. Let's do them first.

We Needed More from the Governor

2006-09-29T12:12:00.000-04:00

Like many others, I was not surprised to see the special session of the General Assembly produce nothing. There is no consensus in Virginia as to what can and should be done about transportation problems. On one side we have Senator John Chichester, who seems devoted to preservation of the existing, but flawed, system (e.g., VDOT lacks cost controls, the CTB can be manipulated into funding road projects that don't fix safety or mobility problems). Senator Chichester just wants to pour more taxpayer dollars into the broken machine, presumably with the hope that something good might happen.

On the other hand, we see many rural GOP House members who oppose another tax increase, having been burnt in 2004. The fact that many of their districts aren't suffering severe traffic congestion likely adds to their reluctance to raise taxes yet again.

In the middle were other GOP House members who offered either to shift funds to transportation in Hampton Roads and NoVA or, even, to raise some taxes in those regions.

Based on his recent remarks, one would have thought Governor Tim Kaine was also in the middle. But the Governor failed to lead; he abandoned the middle for Chichester. That was a big mistake on Kaine's part. One that might well cost the Commonwealth.

The Governor could have (and should have) attempted to broker a deal somewhere in the middle. He should have abandoned Chichester's position, which supports the current failed system, and made it clear that he wanted the middle ground also. I suspect that, if enough senators saw Chichester as isolated, they too might have looked for something in the middle.

Kaine continues to talk a good game, but does not seem able to follow through. Perhaps, he did not mean it when he campaigned as a fiscal moderate. (Jerry Kilgore warned us about that.) Maybe Kaine wants to duplicate Warner's feat of raising taxes with a GOP legislature. Kaine could be trying to reward big campaign contributors, many of whom want to see more road and rail building to enhance their real estate investments. But, in any event, the Governor missed an opportunity. He had the chance to be a leader, but he failed. We needed more from the Governor.

Same Old Stupid Answer from the Washington Post

2006-09-27T09:54:00.000-04:00

Years ago when my son resisted reading, I used to tell him that, unless he learned to read and analyze information, the only job he would likely get was cleaning porto-potties. (It sunk in even at that early age. He's now a strong reader and good student.) But I was wrong; without an education and the ability to think, one could still write editorials for the Washington Post.

Today's (9/27) left-wing rant for more transportation taxes in Virginia continues the Post's superficial foolishness. Oh, I'm not arguing that the plans of Delegates Rust and Albo for increased local taxes and fees for transportation improvements in NoVA are necessarily wrong. But a thinking person, be they liberal or conservative, would also explore solutions to the many other complexities involved in Virginia's transportation mess. Can we also make improvements without first raising taxes?

The Posties rattle off a list of projects that wouldn't be funded, but don't address whether those projects would actually improve traffic or merely result in induced demand and more congestion, or simply worse, spark even more development. Never mind facts, raise a tax! Keep in mind that the very same editorial writers continually blast development in Loudoun County. (But that's probably because the BoS there is controlled by Republicans.)

What about air quality? The Post normally complains about air quality and demands more regulation. What about in Virginia? Would the EPA even permit the Commonwealth to engage in a large-scale road-building program in NoVA? Air quality matters not when taxes could be increased.

The Post discusses Metrorail and its need for more and more money. What about the gross mismanagement and lack of government oversight plaguing WMATA? What about all of the problems uncovered by the Post's reporters? What about spending at least $4 billion to build the Silver Line despite the fact that it does not relieve traffic congestion? Just pour more money into the flawed beast demands the Post.

What about land use controls? Just about every Virginian would agree that last year's strong vote for Tim Kaine was because he promised to stop the insanity of permitting more development when the roads couldn't handle the traffic. I suspect that most Virginians would favor laws authorizing local governments to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances, just like they have in Maryland. Has the Post ever discussed this issue in an editorial? Of course not; why should it when the solution is higher taxes?

The Post needs editorial writers who have the ability to think beyond the single solution of higher taxes to every problem. Perhaps, the Post's owners could have a group of first graders replace its existing crew. We'd get much more thoughtful analysis.

VDOT Maintenance

2006-09-26T09:43:00.000-04:00

What do VDOT's historical expenses for road maintenance look like? The following chart, which was obtained from the General Assembly staff, shows total expenses, expenses for secondary roads and payments to those local governments that maintain their own streets -- cities, towns, Arlington and Henrico Counties.

One-Note Ideologues -- The Washington Post Editorial Writers

2006-09-24T11:27:00.000-04:00

Webster's defines idealogue as: 1) an impractical idealist and 2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology. Either definition fits the people who write editorials for the Washington Post. Today's (9/24) foolish editorial on transportation funding in Virginia clearly demonstrates the Post's scribblers' devotion to taxes as the one and only solution to each and every problem in Virginia.

The Post rants about the refusal of the Virginia House majority to endorse the ill-thought plan of Governor Tim Kaine and the Senate to raise taxes again by $1 billion for transportation. As with each and every other editorial by the left-wing idealogues, this one ignore real issues in favor of higher taxes.

For example, the Post has never addressed the issue of VDOT's lack of internal cost controls. The Post, which has a cadre of good reporters, has written stories about VDOT's enormous operating problems, but refuses to address them in any editorial, preferring that we simply give more of our paychecks to Richmond.

I find it interesting how the Post regularly blasts the role of lobbyists in government. Yet, the same group of intellectually dishonest writers sweeps the influence of lobbyists on the Commonwealth Transportation Board under the carpet of higher taxes. I guess that lobbyists influencing the federal government, the D.C. government, Maryland government, etc. is wrong. But it is commendable for Virginia land speculators and developers to hire lobbyists to steer transportation tax dollars to fund roads and rails to locations that benefit real estate plans, rather than to address transportation problems. It must have something to do with higher taxes.

The Post supports development fees in Maryland, but certainly not in Virginia. At least not when taxes could be raised! Your inconsistency has not fooled all of us.

The Post is a top-notch paper with some very excellent reporters, but its editorial staff lacks basic intellectual honesty when it comes to Virginia issues. Let's get some people on staff who are more than one-note idealogues on tax increases.

More on Maintenance of Secondary & Local Roads

2006-09-21T17:21:00.000-04:00

We often hear that: 1) road maintenance costs are overwhelming Virginia's pool of transportation funds; and 2) growth in secondary roads is crushing the State's ability to construct other roads all over Virginia. What do State data show?

Are maintenance costs for secondary roads a larger percentage of VDOT's maintenance budget now than ten years ago? According to VDOT data, 44% of VDOT's maintenance budget for 1996 was spent on secondary roads. In 2005, secondary road maintenance costs had dropped to 42% of VDOT's total maintenance budget. Even when one considers the more costly payments for local road maintenance made by VDOT, total secondary and local road maintenance costs as a percentage of VDOT's total maintenance costs dropped from 56% in 1996 to 53% in 2005.

From these figures, it does not appear that maintenance for local streets is overwhelming VDOT's budget. We cannot afford to ignore these costs, and VDOT needs to strive for more efficiencies; but secondary and local road maintenance does not seem to be the big budget killer that it is purported to be.
Perhaps, the truth is that the road-building crowd (developers, land speculators, contractors, etc.) simply want to see more pavement for their own private benefit? Or does the Virginia business community and the press just mouth slogans, rather than examine data? Could our problems require more sophisticated solutions than "we need more money"?

Clearly, Virginia is adding more secondary streets at a rate that is exceeding growth in primary and interstate highways. But is that found throughout Virginia? Which jurisdictions are the culprits for adding these local roads to the system? According to State data, they are as follows:

This chart helps explain why many Virginia legislators don't see the crisis felt by others.

There remain many questions about transportation that need consideration. It's too bad that the bulk of Virginia's press and organized business community aren't participating seriously in this analysis and discussion.

VDOT's Efficiency Edge

2006-09-20T18:33:00.000-04:00

I, like many others in Virginia, often criticize VDOT. Indeed, it's fairly easy to do.

I now need to give VDOT a cheer. I've discovered an area where VDOT seems to have an edge -- maintenance costs for local streets.

I was given some materials on transportation by a friend, who, in turn, received them from the State. I copied some of the data into a spreadsheet to see what I could find. One finding was that, in terms of the cost of maintaining secondary roads, VDOT seems to be much more efficient than those local governments that maintain their their own streets, when measured in cost per lane mile. Otherwise, the state funding to local governments for road maintenance is too generous.

As I understand the rules, Arlington and Henrico Counties, along with Virginia's incorporated towns and cities, maintain their own streets. VDOT, in turn, sends each such locality road maintenance funds on a quarterly basis. (Prior to 2003, this aid was adjusted by formula. Since 2003, state aid has increased at the same rate as VDOT's maintenance budget is increased.) For all other secondary roads in Virginia, VDOT is in charge of maintenance.

In 1996, there were 93,191 lane miles of secondary roads maintained by VDOT, and 25,112 miles of roads maintained by local governments. VDOT's maintenance cost per lane mile (secondary roads only) was around $3,171, while the state aid per lane mile for the affected localities was almost $7,449 -- a difference of more than $4275 per lane mile. The comparable figures for 2005 are: 97,579 lane miles (VDOT secondary), 27,675 lane miles (local streets), $5,149 (VDOT maintenance per lane mile), and $12,257 (state aid per lane mile).

Either VDOT is much more efficient than localities doing their own maintenance or the state aid formula is overly generous. In any event, this subject needs more scrutiny.

Tony Griffin's Promise to Pay for Silver Line Cost Overruns

2006-09-14T15:10:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine recently shared a letter with me -- one that I heard about, but had not seen. The letter was written last year (November 1, 2005) by Fairfax County Executive Tony Griffin. It was sent to Virginia's Secretary of Transportation, Pierce Homer. The letter, copy displayed below, discusses the County's commitment to the extension of Metrorail through Tysons Corner and to Dulles and beyond.

Griffin's letter then discusses cost overruns and, without authorization from our elected supervisors, commits Fairfax County taxpayers to fund the County's "share" of cost overruns. How? Using a "pay-as-you-go" plan using General Fund revenues, which, of course, come chiefly from real estate taxes that are paid by all of us. And we thought the days of double-digit real estate tax increases were over! Alternatively, Griffin's suggests that the County would seek approval to issue bonds and go into debt to pay for cost overruns.

Of course, as a non-elected employee of the County, Tony Griffin can no more commit Fairfax County taxpayers to pay for cost overruns than could a clerk in a county office. But was Tony Griffin instructed or, at least, encouraged by one or more supervisors to send a signal to the State and the Tysons Corner landowners that the supervisors would do all in their power to make ordinary citizens pay for the inevitable cost overruns? If the supervisors were not supportive of this "commitment" of taxpayer money, why didn't they officially countermand Griffin?

Why discuss a letter that's almost one year old? The letter is material because we are soon likely to learn from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) whether there will be federal funding for the Silver Line. The FTA could quickly decide whether the current proposal passes the cost/benefit test. If federal funding is available, the project will go forward.

But that's not the end of the financial issues. Few, if any, large construction projects do not experience cost overruns. The Silver Line will certainly cost more than $4 billion to build. Who will pay for these extra costs? Not the federal government. Its share is limited to $900 million. Unless there's a change in the special tax district, not the Tysons and Dulles Corridor landowners. Their commitment is limited to $400 million for Phase I.

Who is left? Certainly not the Virginia treasury. Northern Virginia gets very little from the State. Toll Road drivers. Probably, but just how high could tolls be raised before we have a revolt -- especially since the Toll Road would not receive the benefits from rate hikes? That leaves the residents of Fairfax County in the bulls-eye. Absent some legislative protections, there is a significant risk that real estate taxes paid by the county's residents will be increased to pay for Silver Line cost overruns. That's why Tony Griffin's letter is still very important today. His letter suggest that this fear will likely come true. We are likely to see our property taxes increase to build a rail line that does not reduce traffic congestion, but only enriches a select group of landowners. This is wrong.

We need Gerry Connolly to address this issue. We also probably need legislation to prohibit Fairfax County from recovering any Silver Line capital expenses in real estate taxes.

Uncle's Cutting His Tech Spending

2006-09-11T18:50:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post's business section (9/11) contained an interesting article on the slowing pace of the federal government's technology purchases. Virginia, especially NoVA, has been riding a big horse (government contracting for technology) since 9/11. Many people would give this huge economic stimulus credit for the boom times in Virginia. (Well, not the editorial writers from the Post. They assume that Mark Warner's tax increases caused the boom.)

I've been of the opinion for some time that the rate of government contracts being let was going to slow sooner or later. Today, it looks more like sooner than later. The story was not gloom and doom, just a slowing to more historic patterns.

But now what happens? A few years ago, we had the big Internet/Telecom bust. (Of course, the accounting scandals didn't help.) Quite a few people lost good jobs. Many, but certainly not all, of the Techies moved to government contracting. There's also been great pressure to increase the number of H1-B visas to bring in more technology experts from overseas.

Many of the owners and workers in government technology also took advantage of the ultra-low interests rates and purchased bigger houses than the high schools they attended. We've seen interest rates rise, and many homes placed on the resale market. Will this problem be exacerbated by a slow-down in government contracts? What happens if both real estate and government contracting are hurting?

Our Governor and General Assembly have not exactly learned from the last fiscal mess. Spending is up way beyond population growth and inflation. Will Tim Kaine face fiscal problems during the latter part of his term? If so, will he propose higher taxes? Can a second governor con enough senators and delegates into one more tax increase? Shouldn't we all get spending discipline soon?

I suspect I'll be writing much more on this subject. These are just some initial reactions?

Four Billion Dollars (or More) for Nothing in Return

2006-09-09T15:36:00.000-04:00

There are many questions that elected officials don't want to answer. One of them is: Why are taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users being asked to pay at least $4 billion dollars to build the Silver Line extension of Metrorail in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties when the Commonwealth of Virginia's own data demonstrates there will be virtually no traffic relief? This probably seems counterintuitive, but it is true. Take a look at Table 6.2-2 from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (December 2004) for the Dulles Metro Project. A copy of the Table is shown. The Table can also be found online at http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/FEIS_I/FTA_FEIS_Chapter_6.pdf. The Table is found on page 6.25.

Doesn't this seem absurd, even for Fairfax County? This table demonstrates that we, who live and/or work in Fairfax County, will face traffic congestion that is at least as bad as we have it today after spending $4 billion of taxpayer and Toll Road user money.

How can this be? Last year, an employee of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit was asked this very question. The response was: The Silver Line will certainly take drivers off the roads, but the rezoning of Tysons Corner and other locations near rail will add so many new cars to our streets that all of the gains from the multi-billion dollar project will be undone. That means we are spending billions of dollars to help bring more people and more cars to Fairfax County. Good idea?

Then, of course, there are the cost overruns that occur with any large construction project (Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, Boston's Big Dig). How big will the Silver Line's cost overruns be? Who will pay for them?

This is stupid by any person's standards -- unless, of course, you just happen to work for one of the major Tysons Corner landowners or their contractors and agents.

Is Virginia that flush with transportation money that we can waste billions without improving traffic?