Our “friends” in Richmond have passed a compromise bill that aims to solve the transportation crisis. The bill is an odd mix of local taxes, regional transportation authorities and regional taxes. Many people are prepared to accept a solution at any cost. Others are completely opposed to the provisions of the bill. Overall, it is not a promising mix of politics and policy.
One of the more controversial parts of the plan includes regional transportation authorities that can levy taxes. For my part, I am not crazy about having a regional authority that has taxing authority. I believe that taxing authority should be located as close as possible to those paying the taxes. The local governments have to decide whether or not to participate. The way the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority is organized, a majority of the participants have to agree to enact the taxes. Manassas will have a vote but the general sentiment seems to be that the votes are there to enact the taxing authority with or without us. This being the case, voting against it might only serve to aggrevate those larger jurisdictions that seem to support the idea.
What does everyone out there think?
April 12, 2007 at 8:23 am
Usually, I am opposed to any new taxes. I voted against the sales tax referendum a few years ago, as it contained no assurance that the money raised in NoVA would stay in NoVa. On this issue, I believe that it is less a Democrat vs. Republican issue, than it is a NoVA vs. the rest of Virginia issue.
From a Manassas perspective, I only see one project, the Wellington/Rt 28 interchange, which is a high-priority transportation project. Due to our size and geography, we are more impacted by what the other localities do for transportation, than we are by any local project that we could complete.
Therefore, I am a bit torn. I have mixed feelings regarding the transportation package. I like that a greater portion of the general fund surplus will be dedicated to NoVA transportation. I don’t like that there will be additional taxes raised, even though the money will stay here. I like that localities like Arlington, Fairfax and PWC will have a means to fund projects that will benefit Manassas residents. I don’t like it that some of my tax dollars may end up funding projects in these localities, but better a piece of road I drive on, than an off-ramp to nowhere in Blacksburg.
You have to expect this with any compromise. No one gets everything that they want, but we all get something. Truth be told, I am glad that at least the GA and Gov. could pass something, anything. If neither side had been willing to compromise, we ended up with nothing. This would have been far worse.
April 12, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ok, governing is often about not finding the perfect answer, but
the best possible answer – and this may be it. (Some of this
money is slated for the VRE – which, I’m told, really needs it
to buy new engines – too many recent delays due to
equipment failure recently may drive riders back to their cars).
Jackson Miller voted for this – and many would like like to hear
more from him on this plan.
Stay tuned.
April 12, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Off topic, but I’m interested in what folks think of a “Bloggers
Code of Conduct” put forward by Tim O’Reilly and Jim Wales
(WSJ’s op-ed 4-12-07). “The reason for this code is the phenomenon
of people posting extremely nasty comments about other people
on Web sites devoted to political and social commentary”.
Noooo, certainly they jest – bloggers are all decent fair minded
folk, right? Shades of Imus!
“Free speech is enhanced by civility” – something to think about.
(Think Andy enacted a good code of conduct when he started
this blog – a step in the right direction.)
April 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm
BD:
I’ve been on the internet a long time and my code of conduct is really the only one that works for moderated forums. Places really only run one of two ways – wide open or moderated. Mine is moderated as I’m looking for feedback. Others have a different kind of forum in mind. Both are fine as long as you try to stick to your rules….
April 12, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Andy, this is NOT a good law. The amended version is worse than the original bill. Now if 6 of 9 jurisdictions vote for the tax/fee increases, then all 9 jurisdictions must enact them. Talk about “Taxation without representation!” So let’s–
Arlington — Yes
Alexandria — Yes
Falls Church — Yes
Fairfax City — Yes
Fairfax County — Yes
Loudoun County — Yes
PW County, Manassas City, Manassas Park — doesn’t matter!
This law would increase real estate taxes and residential property fees.
And despite what the City would raise, the NVTA gets 60% to spend as it sees fit! And where would the spending be — not in Manassas City.
We should try to get state funding for Rte. 28/Wellington Rd/Train track overpass without this law. Jackson?
Del. Bob Marshall wrote in BVBL about the (unconstitutional?) precedence of setting up unelectable, unaccountable regional tax authorities.
Andy, vote “no” on this but I’m afraid it might not make a difference. Everyone get out your checkbooks! Transportation $ should come from General Fund revenues and bonds, as basic functions of state government.
April 13, 2007 at 11:21 am
Dave Core is right on target with his posting. If this passes
court review as constitutional, then this transportation plan
may well prove to be a very bumpy road for PWC, Manassas,
and Manassas Park.
More than a few folks would like to hear Delegate Miller’s view
on this matter – is there something we are missing out here in
the boonies?
April 16, 2007 at 5:16 am
As I understand it, should the RTA’s be deemed unconstitutional, the other parts of the budget, including the additional General Fund money, will still move forward.