Cars, taxes, and fairness

         While perusing the Virginia blogs, I came across this Crystal Clear Conservative post slamming the Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates in my district, who suggested that the state “charge vehicle property taxes in a way that corresponds to each driver’s contribution to congestion and excessive road wear, e.g., by weight of vehicles.”  This is largely a moot point now because a.) she does not have a prayer of winning, and b.) she has removed this aspect of her transportation vision from her website.

            I can understand why people may find this proposal unpalatable because “big government” is penalizing you for buying a hefty car.  But, this makes perfect sense under free market conditions in which all information is available—a concept which conservatives claim to uphold.  Think about it: when you buy your SUV, register it, and pump gas into it, are you paying for the wear that you inflict on the road?  For the pollution you cause to the air and water (in the form of runoff)?  For the large parking space you take up?  If you think the answer is yes, then ask yourself what price the tiny, hybrid car driver is paying for these infrastructural and environmental issues.  It’s the same amount.

            As it is, road and parking lot construction is socialized.  You can drive 100 miles down a stretch of road in a compact car or drive back and forth for one mile 100 times in a pickup truck and still only be paying for your gas usage, even though clearly one driver is putting out more exhaust and causing more road wear.  The state at the end of the day has to pool our tax dollars and apply fixes to these problems.  We charge trucks higher tolls because of their heavier weight, so why can we not apply the same principle to drivers of large vehicles?

            Now, the point I am about to make does not have any direct bearing on a vehicle-weight tax, but it invariably comes up when talking about road transportation: the tax we pay on gas is not a user fee, nor is it a sales tax.  It is simply a gas tax that is usually set slightly higher than the sales tax.  For example, in Virginia the sales tax is five cents on every dollar (5%).  It is .191 cents per gallon of gas.  If gas is $2.50 per gallon, this means that each dollar of gas has a 7.6% gas tax.  So, in effect the user fee that we pay for our roads is 2.6 cents per dollar of gas.

            The Virginia gas tax, like the cigarette tax (which is 30% per dollar) is low relative to most other states.  In the past, any discussion about raising either of these taxes has been silenced by asking the question: why are we trying to penalize people for smoking/driving by curtailing their liberty to engage in that activity?  Well, the fact is that driving and smoking—like anything when done to excess—create a hazard.  Too much smoking induces medical problems which gobble up our healthcare resources.  Too many cars wear out our infrastructure, cause congestion, and degrade the quality of life.

            In any conversation about whether to raise the gas tax, perhaps it would be more helpful to frame the problem in terms of “equitable user fees”.  The exact amount at which to set the user fee would be a normative question.  Is it worth only 2.6 cents to you that, for every gallon of gas you burn, you receive: road access, free parking in many locations, no direct air or water quality charge, the ability to keep mass transit users off the roads and out of your way, and the maintenance of stoplights, intersections, and road signage?

            If we’re going to talk about vehicle-related taxes (and Virginia will have to soon), let’s at least acknowledge the fundamental issue of fairness at stake before the more complicated question is resolved of how much of the cost burden road users should bear.

Responsibility for home-alone children

            Last week, The Washington Post’s Brigid Schulte maligned the plight of “latchkey children” who come home after school each to an empty household.  It pained me to read the article, not exactly because I felt sorry for Schulte or her son, but because her diagnosis the problem missed the mark.  Remember, there are two ways to deal with problems: either mitigate the negative effects or remove the causes.  I’d like to address the latter by citing two reasons for the possible existence of the “latchkey child” phenomenon.

            First, there is no such thing as a free lunch: Parents who move to the suburbs for “good schools” and “safe neighborhoods” also may harm their children in doing so.  The practice of single-use zoning has resulted in subdivisions and cul-de-sac neighborhoods that are not integrated into the rest of society.  Where we live is now separate from where we work, where we play, and where we seek out basic goods and services.

         Consequently, driving becomes a necessity (and a chore) in order to seek out activity. The only options for younger children are to play in the street (which parents abhor) or sit in front of the computer monitor.  The D.C. suburbs are ground zero for this type of misguided planning.  If homes coexisted with retail, recreation, and entertainment, children could find after-school stimulation in their own neighborhoods.

            Second, the problem of suburbia also affects the parents.  Why should adults, who may sit in an hour’s worth of traffic during their afternoon commutes, demand that schools supervise their children until moms and dads arrive home in the evening?  Why do local governments continue to build office “parks” in locations far from schools, homes, and commerce instead of integrating places of work into existing neighborhoods?

            There are so many quality of life issues that could be resolved with a proper vision in suburban planning.  True, this problem of latchkey children is not limited to the suburbs, nor does a well-planned vision always result in a successful community.  But at good-faith effort could be made to redress those concerns—such as education, transportation, energy, the environment, racial and class equity, crime—if Americans, in looking for a place to live, valued vibrant communities open to participation.  The current model of meandering subdivisions centered around automobile use sends one message only: I want someplace safe to park my cars and not be bothered by my neighbors.

         We do ourselves a disservice by viewing our homes as a rest-stop in between car trips to school, work, and shopping.  The solution is to create 24-hour communities, where there is always something to do a short distance from the front door.  Adults should be closer to work, children should be closer to school, and everyone should be within walking or transit distance of everything.

         In wondering why children are forced to return to an empty household after school, maybe we should look at how poor planning decisions, from the household level all the way up to the policies implemented by our elected officials, are to blame.

Deeds’s dysfunctional approach

          As much as I hate to say it, I am not sensing a Creigh Deeds victory in this fall’s gubernatorial election.

            Don’t get me wrong—it would be nice to see Deeds win.  He is a hard working, mild-mannered state senator who trends liberal on energy, the environment, transportation, and gay rights, while hewing to the right on gun issues.  But right now he is suffering from the same condition which felled both of his challengers in the Democratic primary: slamming his opponent on issues of character while failing to identify with the electorate.

            Right now, the number of Virginians (which is by no means universal) who know of Deeds probably have two facts stuck in their minds about him: he’s the guy who didn’t write the sexist/homophobic master’s degree thesis twenty years ago; and he’s the guy who doesn’t have a transportation plan.  Let’s look at the first point, the McDonnell thesis.  The Washington Post has done a dutiful job (though lately, it borders on the partisan) in explaining and measuring the reaction to the thesis among voters.  Last week, they even convened a panel of women to discuss what Bob McDonnell wrote.

            Accordingly, Deeds has made this a central focus of his campaign.  But this is far from a “macaca moment”.  In fact, when one looks at McDonnell’s legislative record, it’s not unsurprising at all that he railed against “fornicators” and working-mother households and welfare.  So, to some extent, Virginians knew what we were getting with the former attorney general.  What is impressive about the episode is how McDonnell handled it: by convening a conference call of reporters and answering questions until there were no more.

            Contrast this with the way Deeds handled the other issue surrounding his campaign, that of transportation.  His position for several weeks has been that a.) he will not raise taxes to the general fund (schools, public safety, health and human services, etc.); b.) the state needs “new revenue” for transportation; c.) he will sign a bill if elected that will raise said “new revenue”; and d.) he will not use money from the general fund to pay for transportation, as McDonnell’s transportation plan requires.

            So, essentially he is saying he wants to see a tax increase for transportation.  The problem is, for nearly three painful minutes after a recent debate, he could not bring himself to say that in front of reporters:

            This has led Republicans, not unreasonably, to accuse Deeds of not having a plan.  In today’s Washington Post, Deeds wrote an opinion piece in which he came as close to being explicit as he has been thus far, writing “I’ll sign a bipartisan bill with a dedicated funding mechanism for transportation—even if it includes new taxes.”  The article was entitled “My Transportation Plan,” but unfortunately it was merely a transportation wish list.  Deeds wrote that he would like to “expand freight and passenger rail,” “utilize bus rapid transit” and “promote smarter land-use planning.”  There are no numbers and no mention of how he would get this done—whom he would work with, where the funding would come from, where this development would occur, how jobs would be created, etc.

            Even in a recession, and even in a conservative state like Virginia, I would hope voters would understand that raising taxes to preserve vital government services should not be an automatic campaign killer.  As much as I disagree with elements of McDonnell’s plan, the fact is that he has one.  And it’s more or less crystal clear.  And it’s not that bad—proposing, for example, that thirty percent of sales taxes (actually, it says .30%, which I assume is a typo) in Northern Virginia be retained in that region.  I realize that Deeds does not want to box himself into a corner if elected, but there are ways to formulate a plan now while still being open to tweaks or alterations once in office.

            There are a lot of factors at play here in the gubernatorial election, not the least of which is Virginia’s trend of favoring a division of power between federal and state governments, and again within the state government.  Deeds ought to stop saying that he will be like popular Democratic governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and develop a set of policies that will prove it.  Because right now, the man who is positioning himself as heir to the business-like approach of the past eight years is Bob McDonnell.  And it’s working.

Creigh Deeds experiencing a failure to communicate?

            Democratic state senator Creigh Deeds is lagging behind in the gubernatorial polls.  What’s more, he’s running about even with his opponent in Northern Virginia—a majority-Democratic area within a state that voted for Barack Obama and Mark Warner last year…and Jim Webb and Tim Kaine in the cycle before that.  What’s handicapping Deeds?

            Two things: one, it’s not a “Democratic year.”  Independents who were willing to give Obama a chance and are now wary of his policies are taking their frustration out on statewide elections.  There is not too much that can be done about that unless the economy turns around (it will eventually, just perhaps not by November).  But the other factor is fixable: liberals, particularly in Northern Virginia, are just not that enthusiastic about Deeds.

            Which is strange—considering that he beat two Northern Virginians in the primary by large margins even in their own backyards.  Former Congressman Tom Davis, who is a Republican but not a staunch conservative, said of Northern Virginia that “People here don’t get up in the morning and ask if I can go hunting and fishing.”  The inference is that Deeds is too much of a backwoodsy, gun-loving, Bible-thumping enigma to be trusted with cosmopolitan issues—even though his opponent fits almost the same caricature.

            Republican Bob McDonnell may seem like the more urbane candidate on the surface.  As a legislator, he represented Virginia Beach in the House of Delegates, he worked at Newport News at an Army hospital as a lieutenant colonel, and he is sure to mention that he grew up in Fairfax County.  But Fairfax County in the early 1970s was a far cry from Fairfax County today.  In McDonnell’s childhood, Fairfax had fewer than half a million residents.  There was no Metro, no commuter rail, no HOV lanes, and no corridor of defense contracting and IT firms.  Today, the County is affluent, one-third non-white, with large enclaves of Asian and Latin American immigrants, and has excellent public schools.

            So, neither of these men is really familiar with the Northern Virginia lifestyle.  What are the issues important to us?  Well, healthcare and the economy, of course.  But the governor does not really have control over those issues.  Deeds could try to run away from the controversial stimulus package and healthcare legislation.  Or he could embrace what the Obama administration is doing, saying that thousands of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and state workers have avoided being fired because of the stimulus.  He could also agree with Obama that every citizen needs quality, affordable insurance—something he can appreciate after growing up in rural poverty.

            The issues over which he will have control, however, are essentially two: education and transportation.  At George Mason University this week, he made an earnest—though at times stuttering—defense of state-funded public schools and universities, citing his own experience and that of his children in working their way through college.  On transportation, he has made only one thing clear: his opponent’s plan to divert money from schools and utilize the one-time revenues from liquor store privatization is bad news.  Deeds is open to any other means of funding, which traditionally infers that “new sources of revenue” (or higher taxes) are on the table.

            These are good core issues around which to run a campaign.  But the message needs a medium in order to get through.  Deeds needs to stand out on Metro platforms at 7 a.m. and rap with commuters about transportation funding.  He should hop into one of Arlington’s enviroCAB “green” taxis or get on a bus with local officials and drive through the Springfield Interchange.  He and Mark Warner (the most popular elected official in Virginia) should be touring the construction of Metro’s Silver Line and talking about how many jobs the Metrorail extension will bring to the Dulles corridor.

            Unfortunately, Deeds has hinted at his willingness to bring abortion into the campaign to rile up social liberals.  Now, I’m not saying that abortion isn’t a fair issue, considering that McDonnell pursued anti-abortion policies quite vehemently as a legislator.  And obviously if the McDonnell camp tries to link the moderate-to-conservative Deeds with liberal Obama policies, Deeds is right to pull the mask off of McDonnell’s centrist costume.  But considering that Deeds won the primary amid misguided negative campaigning by his two rivals, having a progressive plan and demonstrating it to voters may be a better strategy—as is constantly reminding the base that his opponent has a bad plan that is regressive.

Why Fairfax County should get the ultimate makeover: cityhood

            *Unless another Republican governor besmirches his/her office and brings embarrassment to his/her state, this week’s posts will be devoted to local issues.*

            Last week, The Washington Post reported that Fairfax County executive Anthony Griffin has suggested that it could be tactically beneficial to change our orientation.  He recommends that we transform ourselves Fairfax City or, simply, Fairfax—a chartered city of 1.1 million residents that is the largest jurisdiction in the Washington metropolitan region and where one in seven Virginians lives.  It is proximate in population size to the cities of San Diego and Dallas.

            The move is mostly political: Virginia treats chartered cities differently from counties.  Most notably, cities benefit by having control over their own road funding and road maintenance; all county roads are owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, with which local governments sometimes have a love-hate relationship.  Ostensibly, Griffin is implying that Fairfax would be able to implement new taxes to pay for new and existing road capacity.  What is not clear is whether a new Fairfax City would be able to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars currently sent to Richmond for dispersal throughout the state.

            That last point is a huge contention among Northern Virginians, who note that the wealth and vibrancy of the D.C. suburbs (largely defense contracting, communications, and IT firms) is disproportionately meted out to the rural parts of the state—with the result being that Route 29, which runs through some of the least populated counties of central Virginia, is in pristine condition.  Meanwhile, there are too few lanes and too many potholes on the feeder roads into the District, as well as unreliable funding for Metro and the Virginia Railway Express.

            Northern Virginians feel that even though we are home to one-third of the state population, hillbilly legislators who have no sympathy for the plight of the suburbs refuse to raise statewide taxes or provide adequate funding for roads and rails in the North—even though it truly is a statewide problem.  Many people who work in D.C. who either choose to live beyond Northern Virginia or who cannot afford to buy a house there commute for hours each day of the week from as far away as Richmond, making it more than just our responsibility to pay for our infrastructure.

            The Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Democrat Sharon Bulova, said she is open to the idea of cityhood.  But her predecessor, now-Rep. Gerry Connolly, says that with a multimillion-dollar budget hole, “This is not the time to be talking about taking on new responsibilities.”  This is coming from the man who, when he first ran for chairman, said that the way the Dillon Rule inextricably links the local governments to partisan infighting in Richmond is a “terrible impediment” to innovation.

            Basically, I think this a good idea, provided some basic conditions are met.  First, I would have to wonder if cityhood would allow Fairfax to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars sent to Richmond, which will increase revenues without triggering a rise in taxes—even if they are of the non-real estate variety (like cigarette or hotel-occupancy taxes).  Counties have limited weapons in their arsenal to combat rising expenditures, and the common remedy (done, to my knowledge, in all Washington metropolitan counties this year to balance the budget) is to raise the real estate tax.  Second, I do not want the Democratic majority on the Board of Supervisors to use this as an excuse to raise taxes whenever a new project needs funding.  I don’t doubt that Fairfax residents are used to having excellent social services and public safety programs and would willingly pay to keep these.  But the Board proved this year that millions of dollars can be cut from the budget relatively painlessly with only a slight increase in taxes.

            There are also questions for which I don’t have answers but will surely need to be considered before cityhood is made a reality.  First, we already have chartered cities and towns within the county—Vienna, Clifton, and a 23,000-person Fairfax City.  I have read that although Virginia does not currently have any townships, this label would be conferred upon such independent entities within the city.  If that is the case, will each of these municipalities readily accept their new status or will they lobby against cityhood?

            Second, cityhood would not only expand the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors when all of the existing town and city councils are eliminated, but it would revise our governmental organization.  Currently, we have the Board, which is the chief policymaking body—with the chairman wielding the most power.  We also have the two other branches, in the form of the District and Circuit courts and a county executive.  The executive, who is appointed by the Board and serves at its pleasure, is purely an administrator—working with the budget and ensuring that laws are carried out.  (In Maryland, the county executive—who is elected, not selected—also has policymaking powers and is the head of government.) 

         But cityhood would require a city council and a mayor, along with his/her appointed administrators.  Would current supervisors be willing to yield some of their influence and exposure to a single individual in charge of 1.1 million people, and be prepared to butt heads when eventual turf wars and episodes of egotism arise?

         Third, where would the new Fairfax City’s “downtown” be?  The existing Fairfax City would be the obvious location, but it is not readily accessible by transit.  Tyson’s Corner would become more viable once the Metrorail extension and redevelopment is complete.  But the relatively new government center is on a semi-secluded campus that is not within walking distance of any major urban center.

         Fourth, if Fairfax declares itself a city, will the other jurisdictions in Northern Virginia (or elsewhere) follow suit?  Granted, it is far from certain that the legislature or the voters will approve of cityhood, but will the General Assembly be offended that the more populous counties are using this mechanism as a means of retaining revenue that would otherwise be diverted to rural districts without the larger, wealthier tax base?  Or will they say good riddance to the snobs in the North, acknowledging that regional tensions are beyond repair?

         Lastly, will cityhood change the way in which County residents see the County’s mission?  The County as it stands is diverse developmentally—there are rural enclaves (I live down the street from a horse pasture), cul-de-sac neighborhoods, historic “old town” stretches, and rows of condominiums and “new urbanist” development connected by bike lanes and bus stops.  If we see ourselves as a single city, will we want to homogenize development by producing more smart growth opportunities (a dereliction of duty by the Board of Supervisors for many years)—extending Metrorail, possibly introducing light rail, demolishing strip malls and bedroom communities and installing tightly-packed, walkable residential-business enclaves?  Or do we come to terms with the fact that diversity of development precludes us from taking such progressive actions in developing our region to be more efficient and less prone to creating endless traffic jams?