Especially when we've recently been dealt a blow by VDOT's decision to close a great many facilities in rural areas.  When we had that little ice storm a few weeks ago, my road never got salted or plowed. Like all of my neighbors, I'm getting far less services from VDOT, but I'm expected to fork over the same amount of tax money for transportation spending as people in Northern Virginia who will be getting the full benefit of all that spending.

Now I don't mean to grouse too much about getting my road plowed and salted. I deliberately moved to a rural area and that is the sort of thing that goes along with living here. I accept that there will be less in the way of government services out here. And government needs to do all sorts of things that may only directly benefit one group of people. But when you've got such a huge discrepancy between the enormous budget requests of one part of the state versus another, sooner or later the question of fairness has to be raised.

Separate tax zones for infrastructure spending seems like a pretty pragmatical way of dealing with the problem. Whether this concept can ever be made to work legally and politically, I don't know. But it's certainly fair.  
   

The General Assembly tried to work out a "tax free" compromise to allow the Northern Virginia localities to provide their own "fees" and get some revenue for transportation.  However, it looks like that's unconstitutional.

Just raise the gas tax already and be done with it.  It hasn't been raised since 1986, and the dollar's worth half of what it used to back then.

Anyone from downstate like Jackson who makes that argument that they won't use it (when they DO use many things NoVA paid for in their communities) is a complete moron.

Understand that for most of us outside of Northern Virginia, we look at all of this back-and-forth about highways in Northern Virginia and it's like it's happening on another planet or something. While I personally don't really care too much about a tax of a few cents per gallon of gasoline, a lot of state legislators are going to be in serious trouble with their constituents back home if they vote to increase the gas tax.  If it's the only way to make the budget work given the decision of the court, then it just has to be done. But Democratic legislators from outside of NoVa are going to catch some heat for it that could mean trouble for us in 2009.  

I've noticed that there is a major NoVa bent here on Raising Kaine. There's nothing wrong with that. You're talking about the political issues that matter to you, which makes sense. But y'all have got to stop trying to shoot the messenger when Democrats from elsewhere in VA come on here and explain the political realities on the ground.  Saying that someone is 'dense' for pointing out the way that an issue is seen by large numbers of voters is hardly constructive.

Taxes from NoVa do not stay in NoVa -- they go to Richmond and are spread around the less wealthy parts of the state. How is it that it's okay to spend NoVa taxes on your schools and roads, but it's not okay to raise taxes to deal with the problems on NoVa roads? The alternative is to mandate that all NoVa taxes stay in NoVa, and then SWVa can raise its own taxes to actually cover all of its own services.

Either we're all in this together, or we're not.

I'm childless, so why should I have to fund someone's child's education?

First, educating children makes them more productive members of society, both socially and economically, and that does have a profound and direct effect on your life.

Anyway, aren't most public school costs borne by local communities?

But that is really beside the point. The fact is that the state's rural areas benefit greatly from the taxes paid by our urban citizens and the growing economies of NOVA and Hampton Roads, and on a smaller scale, I suspect, by prosperous localities like Charlottesville. So, on one level it is in everyone's interest to fund that growth engine.

Just spend a day up there and you will see that roads and transportation are insufficient and have a very negative effect on quality of life.

But much of that economic growth is driven by the area's proximity to D.C., is it not? Does that suggest the area's growth would continue even without huge infrastructure improvements? If so, then doesn't improving transportation really become a more local, quality of life issue?

We face similar issues here in Charlottesville, albeit on a smaller scale. Here, UVA is the driving economic engine, and the roadways are becoming wquite crowded (NOTE: Imagine 3 a.m. in NOVA, and you'll get an idea of what C-villans think of as crowded). The point is, UVA will continue to drive that growth, to a point, regardless of infrastructure improvement. In this sense, that infrastructure is a quality of life, and local, matter.

I'm just saying there are ways to see the issue from the perspective of people outside NOVA other than thinking we are morons incapable of understanding the overall benefits to the entire state from NOVA growth.

And to your question on spending, it depends on the school district.  Fairfax County, for example, picks up 75% of the tab for their schools whereas Charlottesville City picks up 57%.  On average through out the state localities pick up 50% of the tab, my source = FCPS.

Despite the proximity to the District, there is a point at which congestion will constrain growth in Virginia.  And to the extent that Maryland is willing to compete in this arena (and they do have a better public transportation infrastructure than we do), people and businesses will move there.  Northern Virginia does not have a monopoly on proximity to the seat of government.  There is a point at which the higher tax burden in Maryland will be equivalent or less than the cost of commuting in Virginia plus Virginia taxes.  If we don't want to take an interest as a state in our economic resources, we could lose them just as easily as we gained them.

Northern Virginia accounts for just over a quarter of the state's population, pays about half of state taxes and fees, and is the beneficiary of about a third of the state's spending.

In sum:

NOVA share of state taxes/fees: 50%
NOVA share of state spending: 33%
NOVA Net Contribution to rest of state: 50%-33%=17%

Are you seriously arguing you don't want that huge net contribution from NOVA?  If so, well, "wow," I guess.

I apologize for calling it hundreds of millions when it is BILLIONS.

Before I here anything about higher taxes I want the funding formulas changed

Fairfax and Virginia Democrats are both robbing transportation dollars for other programs

I think you have also advocated for fiscal conservatism, but you cannot have that if you tie the budget in knots with "lockboxes."  Legislators need the ability to change funding dynamically to allow for the best allocation of funds if we do not intend to raise taxes.  If you disagree with your legislator's allocation, let them know or fire them.

Dems. Fund other programs (evident in current budget proposal)

Repubs. Avoid having to raise additional income

So if we add this failure to the abuser fee failure, what's left of the monstrosity?  

Interesting read.

If payment of the regional taxes and fees is to be required by a general law, it is the prerogative and the function of the General Assembly, as provided by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, to make that decision, in a manner which complies with the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Chapter 896 permitting NVTA to impose the regional taxes and fees are invalid because they violate the Constitution.

They could go back to letting the localities raise the taxes.  But then could you force the localities to then contribute that revenue back to a regional authority?  Seems like the localities, all facing budget dilemmas, could just re-purpose the fees for their own use.  Though that might really rile voters.

By that logic, all the committees in the General Assembly are "un-elected" because we, the people, did not elect our Delegates and Senators to those committees, only to the House and Senate themselves.

It feels to me like a position in search of legal justification was just handed one for the sake of expediency rather than consistency.

IANAL.

2. The regional transportation authority is made up of elected and appointed representatives - making it a mixed group.  

The problem the court had, if I read it correctly, was that the NOVA regional authority itself was not an elected body to which the GA could delegate its taxing authority. This would have been the case even if all the members of the authority were officials elected in one place or another.  In other words, were the GA to go back and pass the same law, but remove the appointed members, I think the court's reasoning would still demand the same result.

The General Assembly may by special act delegate the power of
taxation to any county, city, town, or regional government.  See Va. Const. art. VII, § 2.  NVTA is not a county, city, town, or regional government, and thus it is not a political subdivision to which the General Assembly may constitutionally delegate its legislative taxing authority pursuant to Article
VII, Section 2.3  Instead, NVTA is a political subdivision narrowly charged by the General Assembly with the responsibility of addressing certain regional transportation issues in the Northern Virginia localities it encompasses.  

Anyway, that's what I think it says.

A tax is not imposed by a vote of a committee.  A committee is primarily there as a filter and an improver of legislation.  The final approval and imposition of a tax is by a vote of the general assembly, the committee just helps the right bills (maybe?) get to the floor.

The VA Supreme Court made the right call on this one.  The constitution requires that an elected body approve taxes with a recorded vote. NVTA is not an elected body, it's made up of elected officials, but they're not elected to that body.  The general assembly doesn't have the power to duck responsibility by saying, "WE didn't raise taxes, THOSE guys did!"

JOINT STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR KAINE, ATTORNEY GENERAL MCDONNELL AND SPEAKER HOWELL

~ On the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority ~

RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine, Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, and Speaker of the House of Delegates William J. Howell today released the following statements in response to the ruling by the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority:

"I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's finding that the limited authority to impose taxes granted by the General Assembly in 2007, by an overwhelming vote by both bodies, was unconstitutional," said Governor Kaine. "I remain committed to working with the General Assembly to ensure that the Commonwealth provides adequate funding for our transportation needs.  Over the next few days, my legal staff and I will work closely with the Attorney General's Office and members of the General Assembly to determine what alternatives are available to provide adequate transportation funding."

"We intervened in this case as is our obligation to defend challenges to the constitutionality of legislation passed by the General Assembly," said Attorney General Bob McDonnell. "The Virginia Supreme Court has spoken, we respect their decision, and we will advise our clients appropriately based on today's ruling. It remains critical for Virginia's future prosperity that we improve our transportation system."

"The complicated decision of the Court, and its effect on the regional components of the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007, are disappointing to those of us who continue to support improving our roads, reducing congestion and increasing mobility for all Virginians," said Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford).  "We will be reviewing this decision carefully and remain committed to sorting out the long-term prospects for the regional plans in a timely manner.  Fortunately, the statewide components of the Act - which by themselves incorporate the largest single investment in transportation in a generation - are working right now to improve our roads, railways, and public transit."    

In other news, Cooch sounds like he's ready to embrace taxes

Cuccinelli said he would consider a statewide solution, including a possible tax increase, but "has no allusion as to where the votes will fall" in the GOP controlled House, which opposes tax hikes.

I thought last year that this was political genius on Howell's part.  Then the abusive driver fees caused quite a stir.  And now this.  Looks like I was totally wrong.  We'll see whether Speaker Howell can pull off another legislative miracle or whether the Anti-Tax Republican House Members strike back.  It's like a soap opera.

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax) blamed Kaine for the ruling because he amended the transportation bill to shift the taxing authority from the localities to the regional transportation authority. Local elected officials asked Kaine to make the change.

"I am happy to see the court agreed to take taxing powers away from unelected officials," Cuccinelli said. Cuccinelli, who is considering running for attorney general next year, said he thinks a special session will be needed, but he doubts Republicans and Democrats will be able agree on a way to fix the problem.

Cuccinelli said he would consider a statewide solution, including a possible tax increase, but "has no [i]llusion as to where the votes will fall" in the GOP controlled House, which opposes tax hikes.

Source: Washington Post

The decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Virginia today invalidating the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority's taxing ability granted by the General Assembly sends a clear and unmistakable message to legislators in Richmond. We will not solve the transportation challenges facing us if we continue to pass the buck and shirk our responsibilities to lead.

"I have long argued that last year's transportation package was an abdication of leadership, a short-term fix, and a political solution-not a public policy prescription for Virginia's future. While today's decision is most certainly a setback for the regions of our state mired in traffic congestion, it also offers us the opportunity to enact a statewide transportation vision that will move us forward.

"Now we can and must start anew to develop a statewide transportation plan that recognizes the critical role of moving people, goods and services in the 21st century economy. We must have the political courage to fund new construction projects and provide the necessary resources to maintain and expand our transportation network as our state grows. And we must finally recognize, as the state Supreme Court has today, that Virginians are tired of the political games and partisan posturing that led to the enactment of last year's plan in the first place. Now is the time for leadership."

I couldn't agree more.

However, I wonder if the Senator actually agrees with his own statement seeing as he voted in favor of this bill more times than against.   Here is his voting record on this very bill...

NO   02/14/2007 Committee substitute rejected 076832848-S1 (17-Y 23-N)
NO   02/14/2007 Amendments by Senator Devolites Davis rejected (18-Y 22-N)
YES  02/14/2007 Passed Senate with substitute with amendments (23-Y 17-N)
YES  02/14/2007 Senate insisted on substitute with amendments (32-Y 7-N)
NO   02/24/2007 Conference report agreed to by Senate (21-Y 18-N)
YES  04/04/2007 Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (29-Y 9-N)
YES  04/04/2007 Reconsideration of Governor's recommendation agreed to (39-Y 0-N)
YES  04/04/2007 Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (29-Y 10-N)

What's up with that?????

02/12/07  Senate: Reported from Transportation with substitute (9-Y 5-N)

Against the finance committee substitute:

02/14/07  Senate: VOTE: (17-Y 23-N)

Against the JMDD ammendments:

02/14/07  Senate: VOTE: (18-Y 22-N)

Against the conference report:

02/14/07  Senate: VOTE: (18-Y 22-N)

You're counting the same vote (the Governor's amendments) three times. The first vote, the vote to reconsider (which is almost always unanimous) and then the reconsidered vote. That's pretty misleading. Deeds' position is even more clear when you see what he had to say about HB3202 on the floor of the Senate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYlv-BVF-CY

Strip away all the duplicates and minor (I know, that's a loaded term) votes for substitutions and see what's left.  In other words, when it came down to a simple up or down vote on the entire bill itself, how did he vote?

Good God.

But, suffice it to say, Grow some damn cojones and PASS A GAS TAX INCREASE!!!!  Shit, I'd like it to be more like 10 cents than 5, and use the extra to spur more construction!

State Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) today noted Justice Goodwyn's decision, saying "I respect Justice Goodwyn's thoughtful decision to outlaw the taxing ability of regional transportation authorities. As I said last year when we debated the transportation plan, I don't believe we should try to resolve this crisis in piecemeal fashion, treating each region differently, with band-aid solutions. Instead, we must have a statewide plan that recognizes this is a statewide issue and provides solutions that work throughout the Commonwealth. The transportation problems are not limited to one or two areas. Whether it is the congestion of Northern Virginia, the overcapacity clogging Interstate 81 or the aging tangle of highways in Tidewater, we absolutely must address it and address it in an overarching statewide manner that provides solutions for all."  

So what remains of HB 3202??!! Is it back to the drawing board  ? Lets get it right.  

Arlington Urges General Assembly to Act Quickly to Fund Transportation Needs

Speedy action needed in wake of Virginia Supreme Court ruling on NVTA

ARLINGTON, Va. - Arlington County Board members today urged the Virginia General Assembly to act quickly to fund regional transportation needs in the wake of the Supreme Court of Virginia's ruling on the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.

The court ruled today that the General Assembly's decision in 2007 to grant the NVTA limited authority to impose regional  taxes and fees was unconstitutional.

"This decision jeopardizes major transportation projects across Northern Virginia, and will have a significant impact on Arlington," said Arlington County Board Chairman Walter Tejada. "We need for the General Assembly to find a way to make these projects happen."

Arlington's proposed transportation tax on commercial properties unaffected

Tejada noted that the Supreme Court's ruling does not affect the County's ability to pass its own transportation tax on commercial real estate. County Manager Ron Carlee recommended a 12.5-cent transportation fund tax on commercial property in his Proposed FY2009 County Budget. The County Board has advertised that rate for public hearing on March 27. If adopted, that tax would be used to fund transportation projects in Arlington.

The court's ruling does apply to the seven taxes and fees the NVTA adopted, that have been in effect since Jan. 1, 2008. The court ruled that the General Assembly could not cede its powers to tax to an unelected board. The NVTA was created to address regional transportation issues by the General Assembly in 2002. It includes the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and Manassas Park. Arlington had estimated that it would collect $31 million annually from its share of those fees and taxes.

Ruling jeopardizes $23.5 million in transportation funds for Arlington

The NVTA had allocated $23.5 million for much-needed large-scale transportation projects in Arlington for use between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2010. Four of those projects already are in the design stage. Another is time-sensitive - the County must begin construction this year.

   * Arlington projects jeopardized by the court's ruling include:
   * Rosslyn Metro station access improvements ($7.85 million)
   * Columbia Pike streetcar ($6.35 million)
   * Crystal City/Potomac Yard transit improvements ($3 million)
   * Columbia Pike improvements ($2 million)
   * Re-alignment of the existing roadway on Wilson Blvd.: Oakland to Randolph Phase II ($2 million)
   * Old Dominion Drive multi-modal improvements phases 2-5 ($1.5 million)
   * Lee Highway at Harrison Street improvements ($800,000)

although Repub's won't go for it as it is called a tax vs calling it a fee