Righting a wrong on light rail

Well actually Keith, the political leadership was not bound by the advisory referendum then, so they are certainly not bound by it now. I have frequently posted Walter Lippman's definition of the public interest which is what one would seek if they could see clearly, think rationally, and act dispassionately. I try to hold my own views to that standard, and admit that I frequently do not live up to it. That said, in this case, and given the end of greenfield development at the Beach and the market driven desire for residential options on transportation corridors, I think transit oriented development like light rail which will not only provide alternative public transit but which will also hasten the conversion of lower value industrial property to mixed use communities, is in the public interest.

You stated in a previous post "To say that today's citizens are bound by a advisory referendum in which I believe less than 20% of registered voters participated is absurd on its face. Fact is, today's elected officials are bound by their oath of office to pursue the public interest. Regretfully, public opinion prevailed last time as most political leaders simply say out the referendum". Well 20% of the registered voters showed up to voice their opinion which, over your objection apparently prevailed. The ones who did not show up have to live with the results. As for the "what's in the public interest" line you keep bringing up, it appears to this writer that if it isn't what Mike Barrett agrees with, then it isn't in the public interest. As before Mr. Barrett, run for office on your platform of new taxes and fees.

Well actually, I think you misread the posts by me and others. In many respects, I have espoused some of the same views expressed by Tabor in regard to who pays for the improvements. Transit oriented development will stimulate revitalization of the I-264 corridor as low value industrial property is converted to multi use, higher density business and residential property. The property owners in and adjacent to the corridor will make private investments that will increase the value of this real estate by a factor of 20 to 50 times, and will therefore pay real estate and other taxes that will go the city and state government. In this way, it is the TOD that meets the needs of citizens and which provides a boost to tax revenue to help pay for the transit improvements. Not a bad formula.

Well, it is funny that Mr. Barrett mentions polls on transportation issues and uses stats on a percentage that agree with his argument about raising taxes and fees and then and poo-poos the same stats when they disagree about light rail. Fact is that light rail is not being built to transport people where they NEED to go, but rather than where the business community wants them to go. If it were being built to reduce traffic congestion as some proponents have suggested, then the tracks would start at Gate 2 of the Naval Base and work out from there or at the shipyards. As I understand it, there was a train station at Gate 2 years ago. I would support light rail if NOB was the primary project and not a secondary. As Doc Tabor suggested, let the voters who have to pay for this gravy train be heard.

I will never forget the day in the mid 1980's that I had arranged for Jim Echols, the executive director of HRT, to present the potential for light rail to the V.B. Innkeepers. A similar story to the one just posted herein was relayed out loud by one of the participants, and the meeting went downhill from there. Now, of course, we live in a more enlightened time, and in fact, the organization now called the V.B. Motel/Hotel Association, is in support of light rail. It is amazing what a community can do with progressive leadership that understands the value of communication and transportation. In fact, transit oriented development in the Beach District will benefit the visitors, but it will create high value revitalization of Beach District neighborhoods as well.

I bet a million bucks crime in VB will increase at least 20% if and when this light rail is built. Take a look at the news stories already. I'd say a least 60% of VB crime is committed by non VB residents. Yet here we are, about to give them an easier and cheaper avenue into our city. I'm not saying don't build it because of this (even though I am against the whole thing), but I hope everyone is ready for ALL that light rail will bring to the city...and not just the positives.

Well and of course no one is suggesting that the city enter into a contract to build a system at any cost. The point is, there is a difference between policy leadership and management of the municipal corporation. It is up to elected leaders to exercise strategic vision and long term planning to ensure the community can grow and prosper. It is up to management to carry out the vision and policy of the city council. We look to those seeking office to show us the way as they envision it. For Moss, and some on council today, this is basically to say no to just about every initiative. That is not leadership, that is ducking responsibility. The last thing we need on Council is another No vote.

Some of the candidates do not express the same sessoms/tata viewpoint that we must spend hundreds of millions on a choo-choo without knowing the construction costs, ROI, maintenance, support and most of all a feel for ridership. I don't think anyone has stated they are completely against light rail, just want to have cooler heads prevail, and ensure due diligence before commiting precious taxpayer dollars to an endevor that might or might not be the right answer. Most call that a fiduciary responsibility, of which many current council memebers lack knowledge of.

"defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of "caretaker" of another's rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of t

"Mike, I checked the moss4mayor.com WEB site and he does not state that he supports light rail as you imply."

He may want to be clear on it. There are going to be a lot of young voters registering this year. I think you are going to find most Gen X'ers down to the current crop have a different view on this issue than the Baby Boomers who are against it.

This one may follow any politician for a long time. Hind sight will be kicking them in the rear for eternity.

I do make a distinction between an advisory referendum, which of course, is advisory, and the election of members of council. I wish more would show up, and I think more will this November. That said, the ordinances passed by our council are the law and must be obeyed. Light rail is an appropriate and necessary response to the changing requirements for communities. Greenfield development is essentially over, and we need more compact communities with services readily available by means of transportation other than the auto. Mass transit is the answer, and an integrated light rail, bus, rail and airport system will be an essential feature of progressive and intelligent communities. I certainly support such initiatives.

But Mike, Less thank 20% of registered voters seated the current mayor and city council. Do you think it is absurd we are bound by their decisions as well?

Not --- remember the 31st st project. 58% or so said no - and Major oberdorf says - a vote like that is no mandate. They did what they wanted and look what it cost us. What do we get out of it - nothing. The same goes for light rail. They will do whatever they want "in the interest " of the citizens. Look at the rampant uncontrolled development around the city - the loss of the green line and corrupt council members with hidden agendas. We have no say except to vote the whole city council out and start fresh.

It seems to me the only thing that changes with time are the criteria for when the city wants to make a decision via referendum. I can't speak for anybody else but I don't recall the almighty power of public desire being consulted for such ridiculous items as the Sportsplex, which currently sits wasting money. I also don't recall referendums for any number of public/private partnerships the city has pursued over the years. The reality is the only time referendums are used are when there is a moment of truth which requires the council to put the city's future prosperity on the line by taking a stance that may not be politically popular at the time. Rather than make bold and courageous decision which is in the public's best interest, they hit the chicken switch and allow the public to let them off the hook. Funny that many people who think that the will of the people trumps all on this project, don't t

Well, Mike, then make your case to the citizens of Virginia Beach and let them have their say.

Or are the people to stupid to make their own choices on how their tax money is spent? It is THEIR money after all.

Light rail will never pay for its ongoing operating costs with the fares charged, much less pay back the cost of building it. So, if it will require tens of millions of dollars of subsidy every year forever, shouldn't the citizens have some input on whether the benefits are worth the cost?

To say that today's citizens are bound by a advisory referendum in which I believe less than 20% of registered voters participated is absurd on its face. Fact is, today's elected officials are bound by their oath of office to pursue the public interest. Regretfully, public opinion prevailed last time as most political leaders simply say out the referendum. Perhaps is was too soon, but today's circumstances demand that we pursue sustainable mass transportation solutions. The old large lot suburban sprawl built around cheap greenfields and roads is just not viable as the predominate form of development. Now we different residential and community options from which citizens can choose what is best for their lifestyle.

Sure, gas costs more. Things have changed. Perhaps they will decide differently this time, perhaps not.

In any case, having spoken, they should be asked again rather than anyone presuming to speak for them.

As for proponents of light rail who are so determined to not give them that chance, what are you afraid of? If its such a good idea, aren't you confident people will see it your way this time? We have an election coming up anyway, why not put it on the ballot and demonstrate that the people are on your side?

except gas was $1.50 per gallon when they spoke.

The only think Will Sessoms will lead is the over taxed VB citizens directly into the poor house at the hands of over zealous developers.

Who? When you have neen a member of council, yet you poll less than 5%, it is time to admit that your time has passed and move aside. Will Sessoms is a leader who understands that to reduce the reliance on the residential real estate tax base, we must increase the size of the commercial tax base. And he knows that we need light rail to create and maintain sustainable communities, and a by product of meeting that need is a great increase in transit oriented development as low value industrial property makes way for multi use communities, that lessen dependence upon the automobile. Now is the time for a leader who works to create consensus and change, and is willing to lead on this and other critical issues facing this city.

Mike, I checked the moss4mayor.com WEB site and he does not state that he supports light rail as you imply.

A prerequisite for getting Federal light rail funding is that Virginia Beach is going to have to boost it's year-round mainline bus service by 20%.

That in itself is a good ends. If we get light rail at the end of the process, it will be icing on the cake.

Times and conditions have changed, and in fact, the best candidate for Mayor supports light rail. Last time, the city political leadership took a pass and either opposed or did not get involved in the advisory referendum. The mayor showed no leadership at all, the members of the General Assembly actually opposed funding. Now, we have a line to connect to, the members of the general assembly support light rail, the citizens are leading the council on this issue, and it is time to embrace this form of mass transit. For those who say no, it would not support itself, can you honestly say that roads support themselves? Of course not, and it is time to provided this form of transit now.

"The people have spoken" was the comment brought forth by VB's Mayor in 1999 when the LRT referendum was defeated. This was not surprising, as VB elected officials have for too many years focused what little public transit interest they have in the first place to the seasonal Oceanfront "trolley" routes. The all-year city-wide bus system was virtually ignored, although a novice VBCC member did propose articulated buses replace "trolleys" on those same Oceanfront lines. Fortunately, this idea came to naught. Would the TIDE be feasible, now, for VB? Possibly, at least as far east as the Town Center/Pembroke area. But there is also a bus sytem here, which has been neglected for all too many years. Upgrading the bus operation should be co-equal with any LRT proposal.

So the big gub'mint elitist republicans want to run roughshod over the wishes of the voters of VB who voted against light rail. The republicans feel that the stupid citizens don't know enough to approve what the politicians want but the elitist republicans are willing to force the voters to pay for light rail against their wishes.

Dr.Tabor, although I may not agree with you on some specifics, paying for
transportation from the Commonwealth's general fund is like putting a fox in a chicken coop. We need laws that direct user based tax funds to the functions for which they were designed.

IF VB council wants to change direction, ask the citizens again. They do not have the right to go against taxpayer vote. 1999 or 2008. Doesn't matter, the decision stands. If the voters have changed their mind, the so goes the council, but they have no right to ignore a standing vote. It's the way this country was founded, and VB council, nor the pilot editors can change that.

What does the way Texas allocates its gas tax funds have to do with Virginia?

Aside from which, the article tells how the money collected for gas taxes is used to pay for other things in addition to the roads. The title should be "Roads pay for themselves plus education, transit, and other unnamed government functions."

Which is what happens here too, only not so transparently as in Texas. Here, 15% of our road funds are diverted to subsidize transit systems which cannot support themselves with their fares and almost 5% goes to subsidize the Port of Virginia. Some of the remainder gets "borrowed" by the general fund for other government uses, and then repaid with FRANS, which are IOU's redeemed with Federal Money that would have gone to roads anyway, effectively repaying the road fund with it s own money.

Roads don't pay for themselves either. TXDOT says so...

http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/index.php/news/Do_Roads_Pay_for_Themselves%3F

If things have changed since the earlier referendum, then by all means lets have another referendum.

But lets not have a city council swayed by special interests ram a perpetually subsidized light rail system down the citizens unwilling throats.

Until and unless light rail can pay its own way with its fares, and no longer requires an ongoing subsidy for operation as well as building, the voice of the citizens should be heeded in a free society.

Ask the people before committing them to an eternal subsidy.

Why can't the Editorial Board admit the right decision was made in 1999, just as Tata made an excellent move in 2008? The editorial notes the changes since...but still wants to pretend the 1999 proposal made sense.

The 1999 proposal was over $69 million/mile, nearly 175% of the national benchmark cost for LRT. We now have Norfolk's Starter Line, budgeted at about 45% of that. There was no Town Center, no revitalized downtown Norfolk, VB still had greenfields for sprawl development, gasoline was about half the present price, the Norfolk Southern Corridor hadn't been rezoned, etc. Light rail makes sense in 2008 because the objective conditions have changed.

No, the 1999 Resolution should not be revoked. Instead, Council should pass a new Resolution formally committing Virginia Beach to the project.