Kaine says he supports getting rid of roads authority

Let me see here, two years ago Mike Barrett was talking about how this region can survive without the military (the same one that contributes over a billion in business and taxes), but now he uses the military as a crutch to back up his position on the port expansion and the 3rd crossing. Hmmm, then he states in one post that "why should I trust you over an elected official?"

Well, Mr. Barrett, it was those same elected officials that you were berating before and especially after the HRTA was ruled (or the practice they were going to attempt) as Unconstitutional...

So, If the Ports generate a billion in taxes a year and the military generates a billion each year and you think we can do without the military in this area, then shouldn't that also mean we can do without the Ports? Ball in your court now Captain...

it doesn't matter how many roads you build or how many lanes you add to existing roads. until this place builds up instead of out you will continue to have problems. until you build up that "other" infrastructure ie. public transporation, you will continue to have problems. it's going to be one big area of eastern virginia instead of southeastern virginia, that seems certain. i can understand why people would want to fight that because as it stands, southeastern virginia is already in over it's head economically and they want to add more to your plate. but none of it will matter if the money goes everywhere else but the infrastructure. what are they doing in areas (in other states) that are already built up that works, does they ask those questions, can anyone learn from them?

Could someone post the board members of the MPO, HRPDC, CTB, DMV, and the HRTA. And wasn't these six projects approved before 9/11. Has the Navy seen the plans for the third crossing. What impact will it have on the Naval Operations Base and the D & S piers.

In reference to a previous post;
The port generates annually $41.1 billion dollars and provides $1,200,000,000 in local income, sales, and real property taxes annually. That equals a 2.9% State Tax Rate for the VPA. As an individual wage earner My comparative State Tax Rate would be 10.22%. I submit my figures for your audit.

State Income Tax FY07 (3460.00), personal property (450.00), real estate (3600.00), and sales tax (2000.00 est.). Total 9510.00 Gross Income 97231.00/9510.00 = 10.22%.

Submitted by your anti tax zealot current government worker who never really had to make investment decisions. I make a living keeping vendors and contractors honest.

Mike, you have drunk the Kool-Aid of your business lobby so long you can no longer comprehend the foolishness of your position on this matter.

Okay, so in addition to the port needing the $6B in new projects for the new trucks they will add to our already over stressed highway system, you admit that real estate developers are also planning to over develop the west and plan to enrich themselves as a result of the business lobby's "6 projects".

Once again you fail to appreciate that the citizens you advocate targeting to pay for this new port and developer desired infrastructure are not the intended beneficiaries. AS so many have explained here, the citizens are wise to this scam.

As to your name-calling – well, you only disgrace yourself. Carry on

Well, you have not said what city you are talking about, and that may make a slight difference, but in fact, if you as a business owner have done what you said you have done, then you have contributed to the cost of infrastructure. A significant part of your rent (or CAM charge) goes to pay real estate taxes, a part of which covers operating expenses and a part of which covers the jurisdiction's capital budget for schools, roads, and public buildings. The part of the CAM that goes to utilities includes a component that helps pay for the utility infrastructure for water, sewer, and storm water management. The jurisdictions share of income tax, personal property taxes, utility taxes, machinery and tool taxes, and BPOL taxes supports both the operating and capital budgets. As a business, you contribute to the jurisdictions budget, and if some landlord had not taken the risk to invest in your community, and had you not leased the space, then residential taxpayers would not have had the jobs, nor the contribution of your business to their tax base.

If, as Good Ol' Boy Barrett stated, the Port of Virginia provides $1,200,000,000 in local income, sales, and real property taxes annually, I don't see why the cost of the Third Crossing can't be taken out of those funds. Whatever else it's being spent on, STOP IT and build it with that money. In the meantime, we already have plenty of taxes to pay for the rest of the road work.

We (co-owner) have a small business that provides a specific service. We rent office space that is used by nine employees and much of our work is done electronically. Of course we have a business license and pay taxes. Over the past ten years, "cluster" developments have popped up in every vacant field in my former "little" town. The city approved just about every development that came before them; the planning commission has a few people in the real estate field on it. Now kids are sitting on floors in classrooms, our city payroll has doubled and we need three new fire and police stations. Care to guess how much the developers kicked in for the future expense? Less than 1% of what it is estimated to service the needs of the citizens.

I understand the roads debate from both the business owner and working class positions and I have seen Virginia battle the problem since I moved here in 1980. This area of of Virginia plans for only the current needs. Take the City of Chesapeake. It had issued building permits to home builders prior to any plans for roads, schools, emergency services, etc. for the area of Hickory, Greenbrier, and Western Branch. By the time the developers are selling the lots and/or houses in their last divisions, the City is scrambling to figure out where to acquire funds for these needs and how to expand the current schools until the new schools are build, if the appropriations are acquired. Other municipalities require the developers to allot land for schools, emergency services, parks, access roads, etc. In fact, prior to obtaining their permits, these items must be shown on their plans and approved by the City. It is not right for a developer to reap the benefits of building a community without first thoroughly seeing to that community's needs. This would be true for a commercial project as well. Also, let me say one other thing, the wage base in this area is very depreciated in comparison to

what exactly would a wider hrbt accomplish, i'm still wondering. the extra lanes would be nice but it isn't clear what would be the difference between that and a third tunnel; unless a third tunnel would create a new highway into the region where it stops off, is that the issue?

Look at SPSA does anyone, other than current board members, think that a regional authority has the public interest at heart? Why would we think any less of the HRTA? The third crossing is for the port and developers plain and simple. No amount of smoke and mirror talking will change that. That's why so may hardworking taxpayers are opposed to these six projects. They will benefit the growth West of us. Even Mr B. agrees with that, read his comments below. And, oh by the way developers will get rich developing that growth West of here while we sit in traffic! Corporate welfare on the backs of taxpayers.

No matter how many highways we build, there will always be more traffic than space. Before a road project can be completed, it is insufficient. The State never has any money because when they do, they spend it, and not always wisely. In addition to the "more and bigger" roads approach, are there no practical solutions to reducing congestion? Maybe every State office building shouldn't be located in the middle of a downtown somewhere - Surry and Sussex (and a few other) counties are WIDE OPEN. Perhaps a better system of public transportation? more telecommuting or working from home? Some SERIOUS incentive for car-pooling instead of just getting to drive in a "special" lane? Surely there are things that can be done in addition highway projects.

And on another thought, as a CEO, I wondered if you would mind telling me your secret for how we could..."get away scot-free from contributing to the infrastruture and maintenance of utilities and roadways." All along, we have been contributing, but as a business man you imply that you have not. So would you please share with me your methods for avoiding this expense? Do you fail to pay your real estate property tax? Do you fail to pay your personal property tax on commercial vehicles? Have you simply avoided getting your business license? Do you not pay machinery and tool tax. When you build your business, did you fail to contribute to utility fees necessary to build the water and sewer infrastructure? If you built a business park, did you fail to construct all the physical improvements therein and dedicate them to the City? Please, tell me, I am very interested because I have been paying my fair share all along. How is it you have avoided doing so? Thanks in advance.

No problem there. But frankly, for roads, we aren't overtaxed. We pay less than any other state that borders us, except for W. Virginia. Our gas tax is in the lower third in the nation, and frankly, it is simply not enough to keep up with the demand. As the Governor so rightly said last evening, we can have an A system if we pay A taxes/fees, or we can have a D system if we pay D fees. Right now, we are heading toward an F if we don't do something right away. If we don't, future business opportunity will be lost because of lack of accessibility. Investment in transportation infrastructure, that is, rail, public transit, roads, and ports, we will curtail future growth and development and for that we will all pay.

Mr. Barrett . . . I work my rear-end off to have a nice house, put my kids through school (without loans) and take a vacation once in awhile. I started a small business from scratch and have a pretty good idea of cash flow. My business does not survive on family money. I apologize that I am paying attention to the lack of leadership in Richmond and over-stepped my role as average-joe citizen. Nobody contributing to this thread or any other thread related to road funding wishes for the commercial and industrial sectors of Tidewater to collapse. But we are tired of constantly being taxed to pay for expansion where developers, large business and industrial enterprises get away scot-free from contributing to the infrastruture and maintenance of utilities and roadways.

Well, it certainly worked; I know exactly how to set Reid off on another rant. If the shoe fits, you must wear it. So let's examine your contention that the third crossing is only for port interests. That is patently absurd. First of all, port traffic on the HRBT is now about 6% of the traffic, so if all that traffic is taken off the HRBT (which would be nice, but not feasible since it won't be tolled) then the traffic projections for the third crossing will be much less for this crossing. Perhaps you have not noticed that growth to the west is what has fueled the slow growth in Hampton Roads. That is where the land is for expansion of our region, so new traffic patterns must take these trends into account. It is patently absurd to suggest that the third crossing is only for the port given the residential patterns in Hampton Roads. The MPO, the HRPDC, the Governor, the General Assembly, and the Federal Highway Administration have confirmed the efficiacy of the engineering of these projects. Why should I take your word over the judgment of elected and appointed officials who know better?

We clearly get it, us boo birds... What we get is a clear view of an in-your-face tax burden to be unfairly carried by a small portion of the population for the benefit of, in Kaine's words, the whole state. Road funding is a state issue, and the charge for maintaining the roads falls to the General Assembly. Yes, we need infrastructure to sustain the level of development past, present, and future, but we, as a region, cannot shoulder the burden alone. If the infrastructure that you keep harping on is vital to the this area's future economic viability, then let those that benefit from that viability (the whole state) pay for it. It's that simple.

I agree that SOME of the road projects need to be funded, but my real issue is HOW they are funded. If the port goes private, does the state still pay to build the 3rd crossing? I don't think it should. Like a business that builds their own building, let a privatized port build their ingress and egress because they would be the beneficiary. If the port stays in state control, with profits going to the state, then lets look at funding that crossing..... by all who would benefit.

Continued...

No wonder you can only “lead” when you are appointed positions of authority in our regional government such as the poor financial mismanagement of debt ridden SPSA.

Gee wiz Mike, how arrogant can you get? Because the folks targeted to pay $6B for the port expansion infrastructure wish list (3rd Crossing & "new" RT 460) disagree that THEY receive any ROI for THEIR money, you assert they are bad businessmen? What a hoot! You advocate devastating their family’s income with new taxes, fees, and tolls and then have the audacity to accuse them of not understanding their resulting cash flow challenges? Incredible. How would Runnymede react if only THEY were targeted to pay for the port expansion? I imagine you be the first to line up to lobby Richmond and cry "fowl".

Mike, those that are being targeted to pay new taxes, new fees, grantor's taxes on the sale of their homes, higher gas prices, perhaps higher sales taxes, and suffer tolls everywhere aren't "boo birds", they are intelligent citizens that understand that they are getting screwed over by the MPO, the business lobbies, the port authority, the General Assembly, and the Governor. Your distain for citizens and voters is so apparent. No wonder you can only “lead” when you are appointed positions of authority in our regional government such as the poorly financial mismanagement of debt

keithh41833, the main difference is that the MPO is a requirement from the federal government for regions exceeding 300,000 people (TEA-21 & ISTEA). If the region wants to continue to receieve their fair share of Federal transportation funding they are forced to comply with Federal air quality requirements and certain other Federal criteria for deciding what roads must be built, and how HOV lanes and multimodal transit options are to be expanded. The MPO must have a long range plan - with funding committed.

The HTRA is a state created "political subdivision". It's powers, under the Dillion Rule, are limited to only that which the General Assembly grants. In the case of the HRTA created by HB 3202; the ONLY ROADS they can build are the business lobby's "6 projects" - and whatever the MPO writes into any future updates to our HRPDC/MPO 2030 regional transportation plan.

The HRPDC is also a state created regional government organization. We also have the TDCHR and HRT that are state created regional transportation organizations - none of which are directed elected by taxpayers, yet all of which decide how billions of our tax dollars will need to be spent, resulting in massive ne

Well I am not surprised that the boo birds continue to deny the threat to our economic status. No matter that the Port generates annually $41.1 billion dollars, much of which goes to us, the citizens of Hampton Roads. No matter that the fiscal impact of our other major economic drivers will also be significantly curtailed if we don't improve ingress and egress to Hampton Roads. Frankly, to the boo birds the numbers don't matter one bit, because most of these anti tax zealots are either present or retired government workers who never really had to make investment decisions, or they are lower level workers who may toiled hard but never had to deal with the tension over cash flow or investment to ensure the future of the enterprise. Well, we are faced with that kind of decision, and I was most pleased to hear the Governor acknowledge that we must invest in transportation infrastructure or risk economic obsolesence. If the boo birds prevail, all of us will pay for the consequences.

boils down to those who will profit directly from things like the third crossing and those who want actual traffic relief. The cheerleaders for these bloated projects wont actually admit that their corporate line will bloat as we build these projects funded on the backs of hard working taxpayers. There's a reason that informed voters are so opposed to the current 6 projects! It's a shame that they don't just admit they'd make a ton of money off of these projects! I'd have more respect for them that the current line "about these being projects that will benefit all of us!".

Thanks Mike - while those "numbers" sure sound impressive, they beg the obvious qustion - if the port generates so much "profit" to the state in the way of taxes, why aren't those "profits" used to pay for the highway infrastructure the port expansion requires? Why tax only us here in Tidewater for a state-owned asset?

The other thing we learned last night was the the Governor clearly stated he believes that a state-wide funding solution is required, not a regional funding scheme. He attempted to rationalize why a regional taxing appraoch was being use, but he revealed that he doesn't have the leadership to insist on a statewide solution - and instead will cave into pressure to accept a "tax the locals only" here in Tidewater - to pay for state port needs.

At the end of the day, the Gov. revealed last night that he doesn't understand that the package of "6 projects" don't actually offer citizens any commuter traffic congestion relief. Several citizens tried to trell him, but he wasn't really listening - on waiting for them to finish so he could move on to other topics.

What is the difference (on constitutional grounds) between the The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority and The Metropolitan Planning Organization? Reid makes a valid point that both are appointed unelected entities that had the ability to raise taxes. HRTA by voting to assess taxes on other jurisdictions. The MPO with the ability selectively decide which projects are in the best interests of the business community and force them down the throats of the public to finance them through taxes and tolls. A back door means of taxation without representation.
WOW! I guess I answered my own question.

The economic activity of the Port of Virginia provides $1,200,000,000 in local income, sales, and real property taxes annually according to the most recent study by the Mason School of Business at the College of Williamn of Mary. That represents $1. out of every $18. raised from those three government sources. From those funds, the government Commonwealth ought to be able to leverage those funds with federal, state, and local match funds, plus tolls, to build the transportation infrastructure that we need. The gas tax we pay is among the lowest in the nation; as the Governor said last evening, we can class A system if we pay class A rates, or we can have a class D system is we pay class D rates. Right now, we are about at the D level. It really is up to us, the citizens, and right now, we appear to favor a class D or F system. That will re-balkanize Hampton Roads and lead to the deterioration and decay of our fiscal situation.

Virginians are tired. Where has all the money gone that the Commonwealth has collected over the past twenty years? Why haven't the roads been properly maintained? Why hasn't tax revenues been put into a road building fund. Isn't there a road building fund and if not why not?There seems to be plenty of money to fund state entitlement programs, health care and educational facilities from elementary schools to state universities. Why is the GA and VDOT having a hard problem with accounting? How much money does the shipping businesses and other port-associated business contribute to the building of roads? Does anybody have some figures?

I can't tell if Kaine is really this stupid or if he's getting bad information from his lackeys. Last year, he was all for the HRTA, now he's not? Flip-flop-flip-flop sounds like a Clinton. "It wasn't my idea" is pathetic, but I've never expected much more out of Kaine.

Another made a good comment about who benefits from the 3rd crossing. As stated by Kaine, the whole state benefits; then let the whole state pay for the thing. However, if that port is going to be privatized, let the investors pay for it - they're the ones that will be gaining the profits. Much like Tax-em-dorf here at the beach, I can see Kaine giving this asset away, having the taxpayers pay to have it improved/the crossing built, then patting themselves on the back for a job well-done while the new private owners laugh all the way to the bank.

Finally, and I've said this at least 50 times, if you want to free up money for roads, simply cut the wasteful, bloated spending from the current state budget. The money is there folks!

That Governor Kaine (D), probably did not cross the HRBT, the Monitor Merrimac, The Downtown, or Midtown tunnels on his way to the meeting, since it was held in Newport News as opposed to Southside. Richmond, if I am not mistaken, geographically is north & west of Hampton Roads. This is not meant as any kind of personal attack on the man's judgement or character. Another poster has pointed out in a previous article, it's possible his runaway eyebrow may speak for itself, & sadly, it may be possible, though probably not scientifically verifiable.

Well, I have to say I am quite surprised that Reid actually got it right and provided correct supplemental information from what was in the Pilot about the Governor's comments last evening. The Governor clearly acknowledged and attempted to help the gathered masses understand how crucial and important are the basic economic drivers like the Port, the Shipyards, visitation and tourism, the military and how dependent those activities are on transportation. In my view, rightfully so, the Governor once again emphasized his support for infrastructure improvements, and refused to play traffic engineer. In response to a direct question about the Port, he acknowledged that the Port was an economic driver for all of Virginia, not just Hampton Roads, yet we do reap billions of dollars in economic benefit because of our proximity to this natural resource. I gained more respect for the Governor as he made the tough points and refused to tell the crowd what they wanted to hear.

He's in Hampton Roads soon. We need to show up in force and give him an earful about his failed BH3202!

The governor will be in the area for another public meeting next week, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 19, at the Virginia Wesleyan College Dining Center, 1584 Wesleyan Drive, Norfolk.