House Bill 2285's Senate Finance Committee substitute passed both the Senate and House of Delegates today in Richmond. The bill would allow certain tourism projects to be rebated 1% of the state Sales Tax generated, as well as 1% local Sales and Use Tax or it's equivalent, as a means of financing up to 20% of the project.
The newspaper story on the bill drew a myriad of negative comments on Pilotonline (including, of course, the VBTA Vice Chairman). Given the ire in some quarters over the bill, I wanted to blog on it.
First of all, the bill states specifically that the rebated revenues are from tax collections from sales on the premises of the new facility. Obviously without the new facility being built, there would be no revenue to rebate. Therefore, it's not taking money away from anything.
The Senate substitute lays out a clear procedure for obtaining such funds. First, the local governing body (in our case, the Virginia Beach City Council) must create a tourism zone, in which tax abatements are possible. Second, the locality must file a Tourism Plan with the Virginia Tourism Authority. The Plan must meet state requirements and include the project seeking funds. Third, the state Comptroller must certify that it is a qualifying project.
Quarterly the Commissioner of Revenue certifies the amount of taxes from said facility. He then transmits such to Richmond, where the state Comptroller then rebates the state share to the business.
Yes, the process is somewhat convoluted, and I never would have wrote a bill looking like that. However, the multiple participants (City Council, state government, and Commissioner of Revenue) should help alleviate concerns by some of government running amuck. There are checks in this process.
What does it mean for Virginia Beach? For starters, the Dome site entertainment venue probably becomes a reality. The holdup has been over covering the funding difference with financial markets tightened. This bill should close the gap. Given that Dome site redevelopment has been the #1 priority of the Resort Area business community since late 2005, there will be plenty of happy campers at the Oceanfront.
Granted, tourism tends to produce lower-paying jobs. However, trying to get out of The Great Recession, tourism is an easier segment to stimulate. Given some work or no work, most people will take the tourism job.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due
The extremist Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA) has just submitted their annual input on the City Budget. The draft FY 2012 Budget is normally finalized in February. My favorite whipping boys have three points on mass transit, and one of them is actually good.
The first two are bad ideas:
1. Suspend all light rail spending until a light rail referendum question has passed.
Blatantly illegal, per Bob Tata's bill that jump-started the process.
2. Freeze payments to Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) at FY 2011 levels.
Even the VBTA acknowledges that would mean bus service cuts. Absurd when Virginia Beach only has Portsmouth-level service now.
However, I had to smile at the third one: allow Virginia Beach businesses to claim a dollar for dollar credit on their BPOL taxes for commuter checks granted to employees who wish to use mass transit to commute to jobs in Virginia Beach. That should boost bus ridership. (Besides, those who know me well know I think the BPOL is the most ridiculous tax in Virginia.)
My only question would be whether the City of Virginia Beach could do it legally under the Dillon Rule. If not, it belongs in next year's Community Legislative Package.
The first two are bad ideas:
1. Suspend all light rail spending until a light rail referendum question has passed.
Blatantly illegal, per Bob Tata's bill that jump-started the process.
2. Freeze payments to Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) at FY 2011 levels.
Even the VBTA acknowledges that would mean bus service cuts. Absurd when Virginia Beach only has Portsmouth-level service now.
However, I had to smile at the third one: allow Virginia Beach businesses to claim a dollar for dollar credit on their BPOL taxes for commuter checks granted to employees who wish to use mass transit to commute to jobs in Virginia Beach. That should boost bus ridership. (Besides, those who know me well know I think the BPOL is the most ridiculous tax in Virginia.)
My only question would be whether the City of Virginia Beach could do it legally under the Dillon Rule. If not, it belongs in next year's Community Legislative Package.
Unanimous On Crossing
All voters preferred using the multimodal portion of the planned Third Crossing for getting light rail across the harbor to a dedicated rail-only tunnel under the harbor. I agree: not only much cheaper, but it puts light rail right where you'd want the line to land: Newport News' East End.
The new poll question: how do you feel about Egypt's chances moving forward? Ousting l'ancien regime is only half the job. What you do next is at least as important.
The new poll question: how do you feel about Egypt's chances moving forward? Ousting l'ancien regime is only half the job. What you do next is at least as important.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Another VBTA Hoax
You got to love the extremist Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA): their utter lack of honesty is showing everyone what they really are.
Last week, the VBTA released a two page "Statement" (read: rant) on Governor Bob McDonnell's plan to float $4 billion in bond debt to pay for new transportation projects. It masquerades as "conditional support"...until you actually read the details of it. I'm now going to have some fun picking them apart:
1. "The business case analysis relied upon by the Governor to advance the 'new GARVEE bonds' initiative needs to be provided."
So the VBTA says the business case hasn't been made for the plan, yet feigns "conditional support"? Yeah, right.
Remember that the lack of a business case was the same argument John Moss made against light rail during his 2008 Mayoral campaign.
2. "VBTA commends Governor McDonnell for putting together a transportation investment proposal on the table that does not call for new taxes or fees, nor does he call for regional agencies or governments to be established."
"VBTA is not ideologically opposed to adjustments in the gas tax."
So you commend the Governor for putting together a package without a tax increase, while claiming to not be opposed to one? The no tax or fee increase was so important that it was the first sentence of the Statement.
Getting back to #1, wouldn't the gas tax increase they claim not to oppose boost the business case for the plan, by providing a revenue offset for the bonds? (Hehehe....)
3. "Until the maintenance and renovation backlog of Virginia's highways are eliminated, not just reduced, maintenance and renovation of the Commonwealth's existing roadways must be the first and only priority for non-toll generated revenues for transportation investments."
First of all, blatantly illegal. Both Federal and state law prohibit a "roads only" program.
However, read that again. (I missed it at first.) What they're speaking of us building absolutely no new roads, simply overhauling our existing roads. No one in the country has a program that looks anything like that, as its nuts!
4. "Use of 'toll credits' to secure matching Federal funds is a proposal VBTA's conditionally supports. The condition is that tolls on one roadway should not be used to secure federal matching funds for another project. Each toll project should stand on its own merits and not be the source or a recipient of subsidies from other toll projects."
As has been widely noted, such an approach would lay waste to any attempt to toll water crossings. Toll the Midtown Tunnel alone, and people would go to the Downtown Tunnel. Toll The Third Crossing alone, and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel would get even worse.
5. "New construction projects, like the Third Crossing, that deliver direct value/benefits to specific parties, like the Virginia Port Authority, should derive revenue streams to finance their respective construction from the entities increased revenue streams, made possible by a given project - Third Crossing to increase port cargo volume."
VBTA Chairman of No Transportation Reid Greenmun obviously wrote this: I've seen him make this argument before. The problem with it is that it assumes that the Port would be the sole beneficiary of The Third Crossing and thus should bear 100% of the costs. Damn silly.
6. "VBTA does not support spending a nickle of the proposed $4 billion transportation initiative on new light rail construction or the operation and maintenance of any existing or future light rail projects."
I'm surprised, shocked, stunned, etc.
Seriously, that they put that as the start of the second paragraph speaks volumes of their blind rage at light rail.
The really comical part: there are no "existing" light rail lines in revenue service in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. "Any, and all funding collected by the levy of taxes and fees, no matter its nature or the governmental entity within Commonwealth that may levy a tax or fee, on any motorized vehicle using paved surfaces in the Commonwealth or on drivers to include fines for traffic infractions shall only be expended to perform maintenance or finance new construction of paved surfaces used by automobiles, motorcycles and trucks."
First, out west of The Golden Crescent, Virginia has plenty of unpaved local roads. The Statement refers specifically to "paved surfaces." Second, it's shows the VBTA's anti-mass transit bias in that they don't list buses among the vehicles mentioned at the end.
8. "VBTA does not support transportation projects where the direct users cannot finance the construction and operations cost. If subsidized public transit projects are pursued, VBTA does not support using taxes and fees levied on motorized vehicles and drivers to provide that subsidy."
First of all, that would mean zero transportation projects would be built, because none of them pay for themselves.
In the paragraph prior to this one, the VBTA calls for mass transit to be paid for out of the General Fund. Federal law requires a dedicated fund.
9. "VBTA for a decade has advocated a constitutional 'lock box' to protect the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank."
Uh...the VBTA wasn't founded until 2002.
The bottom line: the VBTA's "conditional support" is a hoax. No rational legislative body would put the conditions on the package that the VBTA wants. It's simply a ruse to try to pretend to support a transportation solution while opposing everything on the table.
It reminds me of 2009, when the VBTA released a Statement during the drafting of the Pembroke Area Implementation Plan that wasn't a rejection of the Plan per se, but wanted a bunch of garbage that you'd never do in urban planning.
Finally, do those buffoons actually bother to read their Statements before releasing them?
Last week, the VBTA released a two page "Statement" (read: rant) on Governor Bob McDonnell's plan to float $4 billion in bond debt to pay for new transportation projects. It masquerades as "conditional support"...until you actually read the details of it. I'm now going to have some fun picking them apart:
1. "The business case analysis relied upon by the Governor to advance the 'new GARVEE bonds' initiative needs to be provided."
So the VBTA says the business case hasn't been made for the plan, yet feigns "conditional support"? Yeah, right.
Remember that the lack of a business case was the same argument John Moss made against light rail during his 2008 Mayoral campaign.
2. "VBTA commends Governor McDonnell for putting together a transportation investment proposal on the table that does not call for new taxes or fees, nor does he call for regional agencies or governments to be established."
"VBTA is not ideologically opposed to adjustments in the gas tax."
So you commend the Governor for putting together a package without a tax increase, while claiming to not be opposed to one? The no tax or fee increase was so important that it was the first sentence of the Statement.
Getting back to #1, wouldn't the gas tax increase they claim not to oppose boost the business case for the plan, by providing a revenue offset for the bonds? (Hehehe....)
3. "Until the maintenance and renovation backlog of Virginia's highways are eliminated, not just reduced, maintenance and renovation of the Commonwealth's existing roadways must be the first and only priority for non-toll generated revenues for transportation investments."
First of all, blatantly illegal. Both Federal and state law prohibit a "roads only" program.
However, read that again. (I missed it at first.) What they're speaking of us building absolutely no new roads, simply overhauling our existing roads. No one in the country has a program that looks anything like that, as its nuts!
4. "Use of 'toll credits' to secure matching Federal funds is a proposal VBTA's conditionally supports. The condition is that tolls on one roadway should not be used to secure federal matching funds for another project. Each toll project should stand on its own merits and not be the source or a recipient of subsidies from other toll projects."
As has been widely noted, such an approach would lay waste to any attempt to toll water crossings. Toll the Midtown Tunnel alone, and people would go to the Downtown Tunnel. Toll The Third Crossing alone, and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel would get even worse.
5. "New construction projects, like the Third Crossing, that deliver direct value/benefits to specific parties, like the Virginia Port Authority, should derive revenue streams to finance their respective construction from the entities increased revenue streams, made possible by a given project - Third Crossing to increase port cargo volume."
VBTA Chairman of No Transportation Reid Greenmun obviously wrote this: I've seen him make this argument before. The problem with it is that it assumes that the Port would be the sole beneficiary of The Third Crossing and thus should bear 100% of the costs. Damn silly.
6. "VBTA does not support spending a nickle of the proposed $4 billion transportation initiative on new light rail construction or the operation and maintenance of any existing or future light rail projects."
I'm surprised, shocked, stunned, etc.
Seriously, that they put that as the start of the second paragraph speaks volumes of their blind rage at light rail.
The really comical part: there are no "existing" light rail lines in revenue service in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. "Any, and all funding collected by the levy of taxes and fees, no matter its nature or the governmental entity within Commonwealth that may levy a tax or fee, on any motorized vehicle using paved surfaces in the Commonwealth or on drivers to include fines for traffic infractions shall only be expended to perform maintenance or finance new construction of paved surfaces used by automobiles, motorcycles and trucks."
First, out west of The Golden Crescent, Virginia has plenty of unpaved local roads. The Statement refers specifically to "paved surfaces." Second, it's shows the VBTA's anti-mass transit bias in that they don't list buses among the vehicles mentioned at the end.
8. "VBTA does not support transportation projects where the direct users cannot finance the construction and operations cost. If subsidized public transit projects are pursued, VBTA does not support using taxes and fees levied on motorized vehicles and drivers to provide that subsidy."
First of all, that would mean zero transportation projects would be built, because none of them pay for themselves.
In the paragraph prior to this one, the VBTA calls for mass transit to be paid for out of the General Fund. Federal law requires a dedicated fund.
9. "VBTA for a decade has advocated a constitutional 'lock box' to protect the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank."
Uh...the VBTA wasn't founded until 2002.
The bottom line: the VBTA's "conditional support" is a hoax. No rational legislative body would put the conditions on the package that the VBTA wants. It's simply a ruse to try to pretend to support a transportation solution while opposing everything on the table.
It reminds me of 2009, when the VBTA released a Statement during the drafting of the Pembroke Area Implementation Plan that wasn't a rejection of the Plan per se, but wanted a bunch of garbage that you'd never do in urban planning.
Finally, do those buffoons actually bother to read their Statements before releasing them?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Initial Rosemont SGA Meeting
Last night was the initial meeting on the Rosemont Strategic Growth Area (SGA). Initially scheduled for Thalia Elementary School, it had to be moved to the SGA Office at Town Center due to school being closed because of weather.
There is a consortium developing the plan, led by Urban Design Associates (UDA) of Pittsburgh. It was UDA that also did the Burton Station SGA and Newtown SGA plans. (In fact, a couple UDA staffers recognized me from the Newtown meetings.)
Things started with opening remarks by Councilman Jim Wood. Jim pointed out that while most of the Rosemont SGA falls in Lynnhaven District, none of the Lynnhaven SGA does. (Hey, Jim, it's redistricting year, so....) There was then a presentation that largely had two parts: overall SGA policy, and specifics of Rosemont. After that, chart paper was brought out and we listed strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in the Rosemont SGA.
Finally, we did a dots on the map exercise. Each person got three dots of each color, and put them on strengths (green), weaknesses (red), and opportunities for improvement (Carolina blue). I had a chance to look at all four maps, and there were some points of consensus:
1. The Collins Square and Loehmann's Plaza Shopping Centers are strengths.
2. The Great American Outlet Mall and Birchwood Mall Shopping Center are weaknesses. All the better given that they cover a large area of land adjacent to the proposed light rail station.
3. The Virginia Beach Boulevard/Rosemont Road/Bonney Road/I-264 intersection is a mess.
Fun fact: over 80% of the Rosemont SGA is covered by impermeable surfaces. Ideal for urban redevelopment.
My big idea of the night: revisiting the "defined nightclub district" issue. I was looking at putting it where the Birchwood Mall Shopping Center is now. It would be in walking distance of the light rail station, giving it train access from throughout the region. (In outlying years, you may be drinking toasts to me for trying to keep that idea alive.)
UDA will be back for public meetings March 15-17. They'll review our input and have proposed concepts based on it. It's hoped to have the Rosemont plan complete early this Summer.
There is a consortium developing the plan, led by Urban Design Associates (UDA) of Pittsburgh. It was UDA that also did the Burton Station SGA and Newtown SGA plans. (In fact, a couple UDA staffers recognized me from the Newtown meetings.)
Things started with opening remarks by Councilman Jim Wood. Jim pointed out that while most of the Rosemont SGA falls in Lynnhaven District, none of the Lynnhaven SGA does. (Hey, Jim, it's redistricting year, so....) There was then a presentation that largely had two parts: overall SGA policy, and specifics of Rosemont. After that, chart paper was brought out and we listed strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in the Rosemont SGA.
Finally, we did a dots on the map exercise. Each person got three dots of each color, and put them on strengths (green), weaknesses (red), and opportunities for improvement (Carolina blue). I had a chance to look at all four maps, and there were some points of consensus:
1. The Collins Square and Loehmann's Plaza Shopping Centers are strengths.
2. The Great American Outlet Mall and Birchwood Mall Shopping Center are weaknesses. All the better given that they cover a large area of land adjacent to the proposed light rail station.
3. The Virginia Beach Boulevard/Rosemont Road/Bonney Road/I-264 intersection is a mess.
Fun fact: over 80% of the Rosemont SGA is covered by impermeable surfaces. Ideal for urban redevelopment.
My big idea of the night: revisiting the "defined nightclub district" issue. I was looking at putting it where the Birchwood Mall Shopping Center is now. It would be in walking distance of the light rail station, giving it train access from throughout the region. (In outlying years, you may be drinking toasts to me for trying to keep that idea alive.)
UDA will be back for public meetings March 15-17. They'll review our input and have proposed concepts based on it. It's hoped to have the Rosemont plan complete early this Summer.
HRPTA Light Rail Forum
On Wednesday morning there was a light rail forum at the MacArthur Memorial Auditorium in downtown Norfolk. The event was presented by the Hampton Roads Public Transportation Alliance (HRPTA). Randy Wright is the current HRPTA President. Speaking were Councilperson Pat Woodbury of Newport News, Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) President Phillip Shucet, and Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim.
Also there were Mayor Kenny Wright of Portsmouth and Jeanne Evans. While Evans was there as representative of Senator Jim Webb's office, later in the week she was named Executive Director of Virginia Beach's Central Business District Association (CBDA).
In addition, five came from the extremist Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA): Robert Dean, Reid Greenmun, Ben Krause, and two Kool-Aid chuggers I couldn't identify. Always self-important, they sat in the front row by the speaker's podium. The best part: Reid Greenmun bought a Light Rail Now t-shirt. Next time LRT opponents whine about who is financing LRN, simply point out Greenmun is, too.
Shucet covered two central themes. First, what is going on with construction of The Tide. Second, to be a mass transit advocate means advocating for much more than light rail.
Fraim stated that the two primary lessons from Starter Line construction were the need to better monitor spending, and better coordination with state and Federal governments.
Since Ben Krause has already tried to misconstrue Fraim's comments on Norfolk's rationale for light rail, I'll devote more time to them than I originally planned. Norfolk has an economy of $13.9 billion, even larger than Virginia Beach's $10.4 billion. 91k commute to jobs in Norfolk from elsewhere in the region, 82% by Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV). 60k of those commuters are from Virginia Beach. (30k from Norfolk commute to work elsewhere in the region.) Especially with Norfolk a relatively small land mass, moving those workers is a major concern for Norfolk economically. Some of those jobs could go elsewhere if the transportation issues aren't tackled. That's why light rail is paramount, and the Virginia Beach extension (given the number of workers) is huge.
The jaw-dropper of the morning: Reid Greenmun has joined the Hampton Roads Public Transportation Alliance (HRPTA)! Greenmun joining the HRPTA is one of the most shamelessly brazen things I've heard of in my life! What part of "Public Transportation" doesn't he understand? He's on record repeatedly calling for it's abolition.
(Memo to the Virginia Beach City Council: you actually want to put light rail to referendum and give people like that center stage for such antics? You can't be serious!)
HRT Staff taped the forum, planning to later put it on their YouTube channel. (Two hours ago it still hadn't been posted.)
Also there were Mayor Kenny Wright of Portsmouth and Jeanne Evans. While Evans was there as representative of Senator Jim Webb's office, later in the week she was named Executive Director of Virginia Beach's Central Business District Association (CBDA).
In addition, five came from the extremist Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA): Robert Dean, Reid Greenmun, Ben Krause, and two Kool-Aid chuggers I couldn't identify. Always self-important, they sat in the front row by the speaker's podium. The best part: Reid Greenmun bought a Light Rail Now t-shirt. Next time LRT opponents whine about who is financing LRN, simply point out Greenmun is, too.
Shucet covered two central themes. First, what is going on with construction of The Tide. Second, to be a mass transit advocate means advocating for much more than light rail.
Fraim stated that the two primary lessons from Starter Line construction were the need to better monitor spending, and better coordination with state and Federal governments.
Since Ben Krause has already tried to misconstrue Fraim's comments on Norfolk's rationale for light rail, I'll devote more time to them than I originally planned. Norfolk has an economy of $13.9 billion, even larger than Virginia Beach's $10.4 billion. 91k commute to jobs in Norfolk from elsewhere in the region, 82% by Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV). 60k of those commuters are from Virginia Beach. (30k from Norfolk commute to work elsewhere in the region.) Especially with Norfolk a relatively small land mass, moving those workers is a major concern for Norfolk economically. Some of those jobs could go elsewhere if the transportation issues aren't tackled. That's why light rail is paramount, and the Virginia Beach extension (given the number of workers) is huge.
The jaw-dropper of the morning: Reid Greenmun has joined the Hampton Roads Public Transportation Alliance (HRPTA)! Greenmun joining the HRPTA is one of the most shamelessly brazen things I've heard of in my life! What part of "Public Transportation" doesn't he understand? He's on record repeatedly calling for it's abolition.
(Memo to the Virginia Beach City Council: you actually want to put light rail to referendum and give people like that center stage for such antics? You can't be serious!)
HRT Staff taped the forum, planning to later put it on their YouTube channel. (Two hours ago it still hadn't been posted.)
2010 Census: We Told You So
The release of the initial numbers from the 2010 Census paints a picture some of us figured out a decade ago: Virginia Beach is becoming more racially diverse. In fact, fewer Whites lives in Virginia Beach in 2010 than in 1990. What population growth we've had for the past generation has been entirely minority.
In the past decade, we went from being 19.0% African-American to 19.6%, and from 5.0% Asian-American to 6.3%. The big boom: our Hispanic community jumped from 4.2% to 6.6%.
I stated a decade ago that it was a natural leveling effect. It never made sense that Virginia Beach was only 21% minority (1990 Census) next to cities with much larger percentiles.
Of course, the fun part will be how the Municipal Center tries to come to grips with the changing realities on the ground.
In the past decade, we went from being 19.0% African-American to 19.6%, and from 5.0% Asian-American to 6.3%. The big boom: our Hispanic community jumped from 4.2% to 6.6%.
I stated a decade ago that it was a natural leveling effect. It never made sense that Virginia Beach was only 21% minority (1990 Census) next to cities with much larger percentiles.
Of course, the fun part will be how the Municipal Center tries to come to grips with the changing realities on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)