The Home Builders Association of Virginia (HBAV) really, really doesn't like the expansion of road impact fees to localities. Apparently, the HBAV doesn't like the idea that they might have to "pay extra costs for the impact of their projects on area roads." Instead, they'd rather keep that as an externality to be paid by others. That's very short sighted and selfish, of course, as it simply shifts the costs - increased taxes to pay for the roads, or increased time wasted in traffic due to inadequate roads - from the house at the time of sale to the homeowner over many years. As most of you know, I have not exactly been a big fan of the transportation "monstrosity," as I've called it, but the provisions that more closely tie land use and transportation are the best parts of the law. Yet those are exactly the provisions that the HBAV has taken dead aim at killing.
Sad do say, but we shouldn't be too surprised at the HBAV's opposition to the impact fee provisions in the transportation bill. This is, after all, the same organization that has fought environmentalists and slow-growth advocates for years, even on critically important issues like wetlands protection. Unfortunately, these are the same people who helped bring us endless sprawl and destruction of the environment. And these are the same people who vow to "defeat anti-business/anti-housing candidates for the lower and upper chamber of the state legislature" this year (the vote to approve impact fees was 29-10 in the Senate and 85-15 in the House of Delegates.
Regardless of whether we like them or not, the HBAV's opposition could complicate matters for the new impact fees law, given the group's status as "one of the most effective lobbying groups in a Virginia Business survey of legislators." In addition, the HBAV has given more than $1.1 million in political contributions over the past 10 years, 55% to Republicans and 44% to Democrats. It will be very interesting to see what they do in 2007.
Without such fees, heavy users of resources pay the same as light users (other things being equal, or ceteris paribus). And in cases where there are so-called externalities, as when the activity causes air pollution, the non-user gets stuck with sharing the pollution clean up costs as well, which is a double whammy.
I think it is easy to see how impact fees are one reasonable way of ensuring that those who create costs pay for them.
Absent user fees, markets operate very badly at times. Here's a pet peeve of mine. Sometimes special exhibits (e.g., a van Gogh exhibit at the National Gallery of Art) cause long lines, only partially solved by free ticketing. The simple solution -- charge a special fee for the special event (something that is apparently legally proscribed by Congress). That way the museum could open the exhibit area for longer hours, financing the extra operation with the fees. A "democratic" partial solution is to have the exhibit be free during normal hours, but charge admission for the extra hours. (The free nature of federal museums, which contrasts with how entrance to national parks is handled, provides a big, hidden -- and inequitable -- benefit to those who live in the Washington area.)
There are many societal reasons why governments don't charge for everything. The free public library is a natural extension of our free public education system. But there's no reason not to have impact fees to fairly assess those who are causing part of a costly problem.
The HBAV, aside from looking out for their own selfish interests, is probably ticked that they're one of the ones stuck with the bill. Next up to bitch about the plan will be the National Association of People Planning to Move to Virginia in the Next Decade (or NAPPMVND for short).
I've said it before and I'm going to keep saying it: pay to play. Currently a gasoline tax increase looks like the best way to do that but if there's something else Virginia should pursue that as well. Either way, this crap about offloading our responsibility onto someone else has got to stop. And that includes you HBAV.
Therefore, I contend that from the getgo we should have pushed for an increase in the state sales tax to cover transportation needs in perpetuity. Think this hits poor folks disproportionately? Give them an income tax credit or rebate in some way on their income tax.
Because we all did not push this broad-based solution from the very beginning, "a sales tax was never on the table" and we ended up in the dead-end stupidity we now have. During the negotiations on the transportation bill, everyone wimply (new word?) agreed to the non-negotiable framework imposed by the Republican Caucus in the Assembly, instead of boldly meeting their foolish restrictions head on. And so we got what we dserve.