Virginians crush transportation referendum

The Washington Times ^ | 11/6/2002 | Mary Shaffrey and Matthew Cella

[ArrogantBustard]

Northern Virginia voters defeated a transportation referendum, a political setback for Gov. Mark R. Warner and some motorists who were willing to pay a sales-tax increase to alleviate some of the country's worst traffic.

The measure was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent. But Gov. Warner conceded the issue two hours after the polls closed.

[ArrogantBustard]

In your FACE, Markie-boy!!! 'Rat Gov. Warner's pet tax referrendums, in both liberal northern Virginia and relatively conservative Hampton Roads get shot down in flames.

[LetsRok]

I have a "NO TAX HIKE" bumper sticker on my car. I was laughing all the way to work. Only an idiot would voluntarily vote to increase their tax burden regardless the cause. Mark Warner ran for Governor on this referendum. I hope it comes back to haunt him.

[BSunday]

"While these solutions have been rejected, I now call upon those who opposed them to help find a workable solution," Gov. Warner said in a statement

NO! That's YOUR JOB, MORON! WELCOME TO THE GOVERNORS MANSION! NOW GO EARN YOUR PAYCHECK, RICH BOY!!

[rightwing2]

I spent all day yesterday at the polls handing out Republican sample ballots and anti-sales tax literature to help get this defeated. However, I have to admit that I was surprised that we won by such a wide margin give the bipartisan support for the tax hike. This represented a very convincing victory for us.

[muawiyah]

The referendum lost because:

1. Anti-growth people think building roads brings development. (They've never noticed Anacostia in SE Washington DC has a great road system with a gazillion bridges and it's not growing at all - hasn't since 1942.)

2. Anti-tax people rightly saw this as a tax increase in a time of recession, and there were insufficient legal controls on it's use.

3. Pro-growth people saw that the use of the funds was subject to veto by each jurisdiction in the taxing area. This meant the anti-growth county board in Loudon County could veto road projects the adjacent, but highly urbanized Fairfax County needed.

That meant that the only people supporting the tax were developers and the politicians. That's simply not enough to get approval!

[Seruzawa]

Need $5billion? No sweat. Just layoff 90% of your State, County and local govt employees. 90% are supernumerary in the first place.

[thinktwice]

Just layoff 90% of your State, County and local govt employees. 90% are supernumerary in the first place.

Not that I admire bureaucratic employees, the difference between workfare and welfare is human dignity.

[SengirV]

1. Anti-growth people think building roads brings development. (They've never noticed Anacostia in SE Washington DC has a great road system with a gazillion bridges and it's not growing at all - hasn't since 1942.)

Uhhhh, NO!!!!! People don't move to Anacostia because they might get shot walking to their car. Walk a dog, Bwahahahaha no one who fears for their life would walk a dog when the sun went down.

But if there were a nice free(not Dulle$ tollroad) freeway from loudoun county to fairfax, I would have to believe more people woud move to wide open foresty Loudoun than would move to "afraid to go out at night" Anacostia. Call me silly if you wish.

[Mfkmmof4]

This is the Dems worst nightmare that voters DON'T want tax increases!!

[bcoffey]

Thanks to everyone who worked to defeat this measure.

I used to live in Loudoun County - when it was still mostly farmland - and still visit regularly. I'm familiar with the gridlock in the Tyson's area and other places, but an open-ended sales tax increase is not the way to solve the problem.

[muawiyah]

Alexandria and Arlington have pretty well been "built out". Fairfax County is approaching saturation (given runoff requirements, etc., etc.). Loudon county has some wideopen stuff but they are fanatical anti-growth folks out there, particularly those who just moved in in the last couple of years.

In any case, Loudon has already approved more residential and commercial development than is probably wise if they really do want to keep the place looking "open".

The development will take place with or without satisfactory roads - exactly the way it did in Fairfax.

The roads, in and of themselves, have absolutely no effect on the expansion of development in a desirable area.

I'm going to be retiring in a couple of years and relocating to the outskirts of Bloomington, Indiana. That "development" will occur whether they improve Rogers Road or not. Frankly, I don't care just as long as I can lug my pontoon boat down to Lake Monroe in the Spring, and bring it to my backyard in the Fall.

[steve-b]

"While these solutions have been rejected, I now call upon those who opposed them to help find a workable solution," Gov. Warner said in a statement.

Hmmm... [thinking] [pacing in circle] [batting pencils around] EUREKA! YOU CAN CUT LESS CRITICAL SPENDING AND BUILD THE NEEDED ROADS!

[steve-b]

Anti-tax people rightly saw this as a tax increase in a time of recession, and there were insufficient legal controls on it's use.

There were effectively no legal controls on its use -- the General Assembly could have simply passed a new law repealing the restrictions on the tax-hike income and added it to the general fund.