Yesterday, Governor-elect Kaine vowed to do something that politicians don't always do: keep a promise he made during the election! In this case, it has to do with controlling sprawl, and with giving local authorities more power to do so. Kaine argues that preventing development where adequate road capacity doesn't exist is simply "common sense." And he's right. However, there are some rich and powerful developers who disagree:
Michael L. Toalson, the executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Virginia, said his organization is gearing up to defeat any bill proposed by Kaine or his allies in the legislature."What Tim is doing is just looking for quick fixes to a transportation promise he made rather than offer up a credible, long-term solution," Toalson said. "We stand solid in our opposition to that new authority to local governments. That is something we will vigorously oppose."
At the same time, Toalson is apparently proposing a compromise:
Toalson said his organization is preparing legislation that it will offer as an olive branch to Kaine in lieu of the enhanced authority for local governments.The home builders' proposal would require better coordination between local land planners and the Virginia Department of Transportation and a traffic impact statement for all proposed developments. Kaine called for both of those ideas during the campaign.
It will be interesting to see this play out, but there's no doubt that "smart growth" makes sense, and that Tim Kaine was elected in part because of his stand on this issue. Many suburban and exurban voters are angry about uncontrolled growth, which is why Tim Kaine's message on this issue resonated during the campaign. Jerry Kilgore, in contrast, offered nothing more than "same old, same old." And he lost, including in places like Loudoun and Prince William Counties.
Not all Republicans are as clueless on "smart growth" as Jerry Kilgore was, fortunately. This past Sunday, the former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia (Patrick M. McSweeney) wrote in the Daily Press about this issue, arguing that "Refusing to acknowledge the adverse effects of sprawl is not a wise course for Republicans." McSweeney continues:
If development continues as it has for many decades, the associated costs will eventually become intolerable. We should not expect to see an indefinite pattern of extending new residential and commercial development into areas where land costs are relatively low.[...]
Government policies have provided hidden subsidies for sprawl, inducing growth where it otherwise might not have gone - at least as quickly.
Traffic congestion is currently a major concern. Congestion not only follows sprawl but is also greatly exacerbated by scattered development. Before any consideration is given to devoting more taxpayer funds for transportation "solutions" for this congestion, we should be careful not to repeat the mistake of 1986, when the legislature agreed to raise taxes to build more roads and thereby contributed to a dramatic increase in sprawl.
McSweeney then proceeds to argue for a "market-based" approach that would "eliminate subsidies and force the otherwise hidden costs of sprawl to be accounted for when developers and homebuyers make decisions." In economics, we call that "internalizing externalities," and I'm all for it. People should be free to live wherever they want, but they should also have to pay the full cost - including the money it takes to pay for extension of infrastructure, destruction of wetlands, etc. However, I also believe that local governments need to have sufficient power to push back against greedy, irresponsible developers. Sometimes, the market fails, which is exactly why economists use the word "externalities" in the first place.
So, how about a hybrid approach - more power to local authorities as Tim Kaine proposes AND more market incentives to reduce sprawl as Patrick McSweeney suggests? Sounds "smart" to me!