Arlogance v. property rights
By Norman Leahy | Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 | Northern Virginia, Politics, VirginiaArlington’s political leaders have already made it clear they intend to fight the proposed property rights amendment in the next General Assembly session. In the meantime, they are working hard to come up with additional reasons for the assembled worthies to vote against the measure. One of the newer entries? The potential threat the amendment would pose to the trolley car line Arlington and Fairfax intend to run along the Columbia Pike, and specifically, the amendment’s provisions to compensate property owners for lost profits and access:
Exactly how the phrases “lost profits” and “lost access” would be defined would be left up to the General Assembly, should the constitutional amendment be sent to voters and be approved. But it could, potentially, mean problems for governments engaged in any public-works effort, especially one as big as the five-mile, quarter-billion-dollar streetcar line the Arlington and Fairfax governments want to run down Columbia Pike, as well as other big-ticket transportation efforts.
Facing claims for lost business by owners of retail and commercial properties could “cause a huge adverse effect on the county’s budget,” officials said in the report. “Urgently needed transportation projects and traffic-circulation adjustments would either not be initiated, be delayed or be scrapped.”
Yes, there could be “huge adverse” effects on the county’s budget. But I suggest the far greater threat to the county’s fiscal health is the propsed trolley line itself. As Tim Wise informs us, the trolley is now at least $100 million over its projected costs:
The five-mile Columbia Pike streetcar line will run from Pentagon City to the Skyline area of Fairfax, and cost between $242 million and $261 million, according to “a new, more detailed analysis.” In 2007, officials pegged the cost at about $161 million.
“Inflation, an increase in the scope of the proposed project, additional engineering requirements, and federal requirements for higher contingency funding and escalation accounted for the increase in projected costs,” the county said in a press release. “The $50 million per-mile cost now estimated for the proposed streetcar project is comparable to the costs of similar projects across the nation.”
Underestimating transit construction costs is nothing new, and is, if anything, endemic to the craft.
Some may give credit to the Arlington planners for raising concerns about possible property rights lawsuits. Those costs should, indeed, be taken into account. But when the trolley project’s costs are rising significantly before a spade of dirt is turned, let alone an amendment passed enhancing property owner’s rights, the fears are misplaced.
But if the trolley example doesn’t sell in Richmond, the locals have created ample back-up:
In a four-page, single-spaced list of concerns assembled by county staff, a worst-case scenario is laid out in which county officials face the potential of having to pay property owners compensation for everything from street festivals and emergency water and sewer repairs to new traffic signals . . . even SWAT-team activity.
They included snow removal in the list, too.
But please — pay no attention to the skyrocketing costs of the planned trolley line. The real threat to this project and just about everything else a clever local bureaucrat can imagine is compensating property owners.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "Arlogance v. property rights"
Leesburg’s mayor is making noises about how horrible the property rights amendment is too and how there won’t be able to be any more cultural activities (parades, festivals, etc) in the downtown area if it passes.
An amendment to give back a little to those of us from whom the Government steals. “The $50 million per-mile cost now estimated for the proposed streetcar project is comparable to the costs of similar projects across the nation.” includes the light rail in Norfolk which has been an expensive boondoggle that shouldn’t be used as an example to tax payers in order to cover the collective backsides of politicians in municipalities who are trying to justify these projects.
Again Norm, I am disappointed by the tone of your article. There are legitimate concerns about the fiscal impact of this amendment, about the increase in taxes we will all pay as a result of extending new rights that must be then compensated, and about the inability to build roads and highways that can be considered to have positive economic impacts.
You have shown absolutely no inclination to study these potential effects, instead simply acting as a shill for those who engaged in sloppy legislating and very poorly thought out public policy that could hamper very significant highway and utility projects throughout the Commonwealth.
As I mentioned before, opposition comes from business groups and associations as well who are concerned about the potential negative effects. Would it be too much to ask you to contact some of them to assess their concerns before you so cavalierly dismiss legitimate issues? Since when did conservatives become anti-business and pro tax increases? I look forward to your answer.
The school yard saying is “takes one to know one.”
I have heard their arguments before House and Senate committees and read their talking points. Their mendacity knows no bounds.
I have seen what these local governments do to individual property owners — usually the poor, minorities and the politically unconnected. They treat these people and their property with something close to contempt.
I therefore dismiss their arguments with prejudice.
Well Norm, it is interesting that my position on eminent domain is clearly accurate and needed when you read the Governor’s statement today that…”“Transportation and economic development and prosperity are inextricably linked,” said Governor McDonnell. “Whether it’s the infrastructure needed to move people and goods, or certain transportation-related industries poised for major growth and job creation, we must continue to make progress in improving our transportation networks if Virginia is to remain economically competitive.”
Make no mistake, I certainly agree with the Governor, but if the amendment passes, his statement, and others like it, will allow attorneys for property owners to sue to stop condemnation, claiming the project is primarily for economic development purposes, which will be prohibited if the amendment passes.
That could stop, or curtail, needed new road projects, like the new SR 460, and even local road projects will be at risk if property owners can sue under the economic development provision. When the Governor is quoted above as saying that transportation projects and economic development are linked, condemnation for road projects is gone.
So Norm, today at the Transportation Conference, the Governor announced his I-85/460 connector and touted it as an economic driver for the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. I totally agree with him, but if this amendment passes, becasue of its strong nexus to econo9mic development, the ROW cannot be obtained by the use of condemnation.
So Norm, rather than dismiss these concerns as the ravings of a left wing liberal, why not instead address the issue directly?
The amendment says first that private property sahll no be taken except for public use, and then goes on to say that …”a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for…increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue…or economic development..”
Now Norm, are you aware of the effect of this language? Do you know the Virginia Port Authority used condemnation to take land, with just compensation, to build the inland port if Port Royal and has used eminent domain to acquire land in Hampton Roads?
Do you care? Is it the policy of the republican party to build roadblocks to economic development and prosperity in Virginia. If Rolls Royce needs an interchange off I-85 do you believe that condemnation should not be used for this highway improvement that will create thousands of jobs?
Leave your response