Unelected regional authorities: how is that not the conservative answer?

By J.R. | July 1, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized |

A common thread among the transportation debate is this unwillingness of some conservatives to support the so-called “unelected” regional authority. While I believe the government that governs best is the one that governs least, I also believe that the most accountable form of government is the one that is closest to you. Which is why I have been a bit flummoxed by the calls from what I will call the “no” section of the Republican Party to any kind of entity that will be appointed by local governments to manage transportation projects and funding.

One of the primary arguments, generally, by people in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads is that gas taxes or any kind of revenue generating scheme, like port fees, etc. ought to have much of that money spent on regional transportation needs. “Getting our fair share” of the money we send to Richmond is commonly offered, even from “no” folks.

I agree with that approach. But who is going to administer it?

If you were to listen to the GOPs “anti” wing, that authority should rest with the state.

The problem that I see with this approach is that if the state appoints a board (or uses VDOT) to manage the administration, then you have folks from C-ville, F-burg, and Bath County determining the appointees to this board. Therefore, any kind of citizen opposition to the decisions made by this board must become state-wide opposition. Besides, the board, again, is an unelected entity, only worse: at the state level.

Capturing regional revenue needs some kind of regional fund that remains outside the normal funding formulas. If you want Hampton Roads gas taxes kept here, it’s got to be kept somewhere. If you want ports to pay for roads in Hampton Roads, some Hampton Roads entity is going to have to receive those funds. Otherwise, on to Richmond it goes.

The counter is that if we did use something akin to the Hampton Roads or Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, (however that might shake-out in the new-and-improved constitutionally viable HB 6055), if there is an elected official or council that is locally not addressing our transportation needs adequately, only a targeted, local campaign will need be waged against that particular elected official or council. This is a far more controllable, and, quite frankly, conservative approach.

It also ensures that money raised in Hampton Roads stays in Hampton Roads — should that be part of current and future transportation bills approved in the General Assembly.

The regional approach gives accountability to the lowest possible level and gives the General Assembly the continued responsibility of funding transportation.

I’m wondering how that’s not a viable solution?

Comments

9 Responses to “Unelected regional authorities: how is that not the conservative answer?”

D.J. McGuire on July 1st, 2008 4:25 pm

Three points in response (I’ll post on this later tonight).

1) ANY tax increases are too damaging for the economy of the state - even if the taxes are localized.

2) Money is fungible, i.e., what is spent on “regional roads” will free up other money for other things. This won’t mean more money for roads in NoVa and HR. It just means the same amoutn of money differently spent. It won’t be long before other regions demand changes to the formula.

3) As for regional authorities, you’re not getting it. A local campaign in one jurisdiction will change nothing. These are appointed officials unaccountable to the group as a whole. Besides, if Poquoson, say, gets outvoted on the Metro Planning Authority repeatedly, where can Poquoson voters go to replace the folks using their tax money against their wishes? Nowhere. This removes power and control from the governed, and hands it to unaccountable pieces of the government. That’s the problem.
J.R. on July 1st, 2008 4:57 pm

So, you’re in favor of determining what projects and how those projects will be funded for Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, etc. from an unelected, unaccountable entity in Richmond?

Don’t think so.

The problem, DJ, is that the transportation problems are regional in nature and require regional solutions. Hence, some sort of regional fund or caretaker.

A regional fund or authority is accountable to the General Assembly, but is also accountable to Poquosonites because they put someone on the board. If the citizens of Poquoson don’t like that person, they petition their local government to toss them off.

If the city of Poquoson doesn’t like that the region is doing with roads, they run a campaign in the region. They’ll win some; they’ll lose some. Whereas with your solution, if the city of Poquoson does not like what is being done with roads in the region, they will have to petition the entire commonwealth to support their effort.

They have LESS of a chance of having a say in the development of transportation solutions in their own region under your plan.

Also, I agree with you on point one — tax increases right now are not the answer. And, point two. It’s the same money coming from the taxpayer whether it goes to a dedicated fund or to the general fund. It ALL should go into the general fund and the GA should prioritize spending every two years….it’s what they’re there for. However, that doesn’t seem to be part of anyone’s solution.
Brian Kirwin on July 1st, 2008 5:25 pm

“These are appointed officials unaccountable to the group as a whole.”

99 out of 100 Delegates and 39 out of 40 Senators can ignore you all year long.

Committees are chaired by folks with such seniority that they don’t even get opponents anymore. How ya gonna make them quake in their boots?

Plus, the Commonwealth Transportation Board is fully appointed by the Governor. Accountable? Not to us.

What bugs me is that it never ends. Can’t give the money to VDOT - can’t give the money to a regional entity - can’t give the money to the CTB.

For years, the “no” crowd says don’t raise taxes - make the ports pay. Well, here’s a bill that does it, and the “no” folks still say no to their own idea.
Henry Ryto on July 1st, 2008 5:59 pm

J.R., your point is why I’m one of the few people who wants to keep the HRTA.
Amit on July 1st, 2008 9:02 pm

For me, I don’t have a problem with an unelected council administering the money, but rather the ability of the unelected council to levy taxes on the people. Are you separating the two?
Henry Ryto on July 1st, 2008 10:13 pm

Amit,

The Virginia Supreme Court did.
LittleDavid on July 2nd, 2008 2:04 pm

Look, the regional tax revenues fund the regional transportation improvements. Where does the revenue come from? That is where the money needs to go to. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Akin to that is strangling those aspects of increasing economic activity in our state that provide the additional revenue.

Keep strangling the economic activity that provides the tax revenue until we need to increase your taxes to provide for the minimum level of government services you demand.

You can not continue to demand everything without expecting that the bill for what you demand will show up.
Britt Howard on July 2nd, 2008 5:49 pm

Amit had it right. The biggest sticking point was REGIONAL GOVERNMENT with the ability to levy taxes. A REGIONAL BOARD(so I can avoid the now evil term “authority”)to administer allocated funds is reasonable.

The second big problem, and it lead to the impression that corruption was involved, was that the main projects costing us gazillions of tax dollars would improve port efficiency but, do very little to relieve general traffic congestion. It was being sold to “Joe Public” as congestion relief and road repair. HRTA’s own studies conclude the mentioned projects would only marginally relieve traffic. Think we wouldn’t find out eventually? The whole arguement from the Penninsula clarifies this also.

The 3rd problem as mentioned was accountability. Look, if the Penninsula is against it, Poqouson is against it, other cities have to be strong armed into supporting it, something must be wrong! There is also the “scape goat effect” people fear. Your local official can always say, “I’m not at fault, it’s that evil HRTA!” while they wink at insiders. Officials on the board itself will tend to say,”I’m only one vote. I think they’re wrong but, can’t do it alone. Oh…I vote along with them but, only so I can get things done later.” Kinda like some alleged Republicans on council that refuse to make a conservative stand alongside the two actual fiscal conservatives. When you have office holders on the boards it doesn’t add to accountability. It gives them more power while giving them the out of “I’m only one vote on the board but, trust me…I do stand up for you”. We might be better off hiring people out of state that are professionals to do what is an actual job. They can be evaluated as though they were an employee. Some grievance instrument could be constructed for when a city feels cheated.

A 4th problem relates to the Ports again. The Ports are state owned. Infrastructure enhancements for state entities should be paid by state wide funding not regional. If it is such an economic boon to the state, then it should be willing to pay. We don’t need reginoal taxes for that.

You might find some agreement with having a regional board to administer funds. What we don’t want is to have taxes raised here inapproriately for state matters. That’s wealth redistribution. We also don’t want a precedent where the state denies us road funding because we have our own means of taxing for that. An HRTA would far from ensure that we got our fair share of transportation funding.
Reid Greenmun on July 3rd, 2008 10:16 am

Littledavis, you worte:

“Look, the regional tax revenues fund the regional transportation improvements.”

Nope. That is not what we have here. We have regional taxes funding STATE transportation improvements.

First off, the Port is owned by the state, and the bulk of the costs for MPO’s 6 projects are state highways designed for PORT trucks, not to reduce our region’s traffic congestion problems.

Think about it, half of the proposed “new” RT 460 highway is not even inside our region. It leaves our region at Wakefield/Zuni and continues onto to Petersburg! How is that $2.1B state highway a “regional transportation improvement”? It is a STATE transportation improvement.

Secondly, the profits from the PORT go into the STATE’S General Fund, they don’t go into our regional fund, if we had one.

Lastly, the process used to select the 6 MPO projects was horribly flawed. So much so that the Federal government has placed our MPO on probation and threatened the loss of our Federal Transportation Funds if the MPO doesn’t begin to folow the Federal laws in regard to the FOIA and SAFETEA-LU.