the Democrats need to field a strong challenger here.  Slutzky definitely seems like he has what it takes.  This seat is definitely winnable.  Perriello carried it and the Presidential race was very close here (I am not sure who won it after you factor in the absentee ballots).

But I agree with you that it is winnable, and, I beleieve, needs to be a part of retaking the HoD. I hope to have more to say about it shortly.

I don't know much about Slutsky, to tell you the truth.

I am pretty sure.  I think Waldo did the calculations and had him losing about 55-45 (substituting McCain numbers in the Orange precincts since it's in the 58th but not the 5 Cong. Dist.) which makes sense when you consider how Perriello won Albemarle convincingly (winning all precincts except the conservative Stone Robinson which he lost by 23 votes out of over 1900 votes cast), won Fluvanna, and losing Republican Greene by fewer than a 1,000 votes.

And I should have checked my own numbers. After I saw Waldo's post, I ran the Obama-McCain numbers, because I figured Perriello unusual strength in Albemarle may have skewed the district.

I had McCain beating Obama 51.6-48.4 in the 58th, but I may have missed some absentees.

Tom being from Albemarle probably skewed the numbers a bit, yes. And yes, Obama ran close on McCain. But people really like Rob Bell, rightly or wrongly, and I don't see there being enough groundswell to generate the kind of turnout it would take to knock him off. I know the same was said of Virgil, but a Congressional race is a whole different ballgame from a state House race. Best of luck to whoever runs this year, and I'll do what I can to support him/her, but this is on the furthest outskirts of what might be considered for Dem pickups...

You state:

"I know the same was said of Virgil..."

and then go and ruin it by having "but" be your next word.

It is not simply a matter of being optimistic or not facing reality. What I learned from the Perriello victory is that the first steps of a successful campaign are:

1. Sincerely believing you can win; and
2. Defining a strategy ground in reality through which you can win.

When challenging an incumbent, there are two basic steps:

1. Convince voters that they ought to consider replacing the incumebt; and
2. Convince voters that you are the person with whom they should replace him/her.

We're not at the second part yet, but the first part is to define the reasons why Bell ought to go. We can all say that he is a nice guy (I've spoken with him a few times and think he is a decent person), but still convince voters that he cannot be an effective representative because he has chosen to align himself with a extremist party -- the RPV -- that is growing more racist, more ridgidly ideological, and further and further away from the political center.

Support is great, but I think more than support is needed. The task also requires purpose and belief.

To be completely honest, I don't know too much about him myself.  I know he is on the BOS and I believe he has been interested in trying some innovative ways to limit growth in the rural areas.  What makes him a potentially strong candidate is that I believe he is in touch with the issues facing Charlottesville area residents.  The 58th has tons of residents who sit in traffic everyday along 29 North and 250 East.  Bell is part of the "party of no" which refuses to back the Governor's transportation plan and also refuses to come up with a (constitutional) plan of their own.  I think Slutzky will be able to drive this point home and hopefully get people thinking about what Bell has really done for the district (as it takes them 45 minutes to make the 15 mile trip to Ruckersville and as they fight through the traffic that extends from the 64-250 interchange to Park Street on Pantops every evening).

I'm just not certain the extent to which transportation is going to be a meaningful issue in 2009, given the economic situation, notwithstanding the subject of this diary. Indeed, that is one reason I made the diary about Rob Bell's lack of respect for the voters and not about transportation itself.  

I'm not saying transportation isn't important -- it is. But so much has happened between the last GA session and now, I'm not sure what that debate is going to look like. Consider that over the past year the price of a gallon of gasoline has almost reached $5.00, and now is as low as, what, $1.60?

I think the big issues might be jobs (well, that's a definite) and the budget shortfall. The GA is looking at expense cuts to balance the budget, its an election year and it is only a 45-day session. In that environment, new spending on transportation is going to be very tough to get through, I would think.

But I live in town, so I really don't have a sense of how much rush hour traffic ticks folks off around here these days.

I think the conceptual argument against Bell is basically that he is a Republican, and in virginia that means he is supporting extremist social policies and an discredited and rigid economic ideology that is out of step with the times, with his voters and with the dire needs of the people.  

As a general matter, I would argue, Democrats have a much more constructive approach toward governing in that we see government as an instrument to help solve problems, whereas the Republican view remains that government is the problem. That is what I think 2008 was all about, and I think 2009 will be about the same things.

You say with regards to Balkanization, "resulting in a transportation Balkanization where wealthier areas are able to fund transportation projects, and thus become wealthier, while poorer areas just fall further behind in terms of infrastructure."  

I think that misses the point in a pretty important way.  The big debate over transportation the past few years was over funding for road construction, not maintenance. You seem to sort of conflate the two.

My understanding of why the transportation plans failed (or rather, failed to overcome the ideological opposition of the R's) was that the vast majority of the state doesn't really have many big, new construction needs, which is why there's not a groundswell of public support for new revenue for transportation in places like Halifax County.  No groundswell = no votes/support from the General Assembly members who represent those areas.  The support came from basically four distinct areas: NOVA, Charlottesville, Hampton Roads and to some extent, Richmond.  With the exception of HR (where the R's are still hanging on to a few seats), those areas are primarily represented by Democrats.  However, with the numbers in the House, we must have R votes to get any movement on transportation.  The Speaker will have to be seriously pressured to let a real funding bill out of committee by guys like Bell, who clearly aren't exactly on board (or we can retake the House and throw the Speaker out).

What the rest of the General Assembly is most concerned about is maintaining the roads they already have.  In Virginia, maintenance comes off the top of whatever transportation money we have to spend, which is to say statutorily, we've gotta fix what we've got before we can build anything new.  So as long as maintenance needs (and there's a complicated formula to put a dollar figure on those for every locality statewide) doesn't exceed what we've got budgeted for transportation writ large, they're not too concerned about the rest of us.

All of this is to say that I don't think Balkanization would lead the rest of the state to be left behind, so much as destroy the cohesiveness that exists between regions, which might be an even bigger problem.  It would get in the way of lots of different areas of regional cooperation and generally factionalize the Commonwealth along regional lines, in addition to the political ones.  Definitely not helpful.  The lack of construction dollars will only hamstring the other areas of the Commonwealth after they start to grow and traffic backs up.  (One key exception that I'd be remiss if I didn't mention is bridge construction.)  Lack of construction dollars could play a role in economic development as well, but that type of infrastructure improvement (i.e. add two lanes to this overpass so our trucks can get from the new facility to 81) is usually handled through econ. development funds, not the transportation plan I believe.

Overall, great overview aznew.  Thanks for bringing Del. Toscano's work to our attention.  As an aside, David Toscano is one of the smartest, most thoughtful members of the General Assembly from what I hear and I'd be shocked if this was his first idea about how to solve Charlottesville's transportation problems.  Part of what makes him so excellent is that he's very pragmatic and I think rightly identifies this as the only thing the R's MIGHT let pass anytime soon, as long as they're in control.  I think he definitely deserves praise for trying to find a solution.

You did a much better job than I in explaining the problem and getting at what I was trying to say.

I would add only one thing. While it is true that the biggest needs are in NOVA and HR, with a big need, albeit on a smaller scale, in C'ville, there are needs for new roads in many rural areas.

I spent a day this past summer following Tom Perriello around some very depressed areas of Southside, and one of the main needs I heard local leaders express to him was the need for infrastructure to support economic development. Of course, this isn't all transportation, although some of it is, but it's also broadband, housing and perhaps most importantly, education.

People in NOVA need to appreciate the dire situation these areas find themselves in, and the need for a long-term economic development plan for these rural areas. Making that happen means that the richer areas of the state can keep more of their tax $$ at home.

That said, these areas rural also need appreciate that NOVA and HR are the economic engines that drive the Commonwealth to a great extent. They need to understand that improving mass transit in NOVA is an investment for themselves as well.

I appreciate your inclusive approach to rebuilding the Commonwealth.  We are one Virginia and it's not a zero-sum game, or at least it shouldn't be.

All parts of the Commonwealth have needs and I definitely agree that it's important to remember and take into account the economic development needs of Southside particularly, but other parts of the Commonwealth as well.  

In an ideal world, a bargain could be struck with some of the R's who represent those areas, in which HR, NOVA and Charlottesville would get much needed transportation funds and Southside and Southwest would get a significant influx of economic development dollars that would be focused on infrastructure, like laying fiber optic lines for internet access and expanding community colleges (combined with money targeted specifically at helping people transition into new careers).  However, I think it's pretty clear to all of us that the R side of that bargain has little interest in making that kind of deal.    

Originally, I supported the RTA initiative along with the Governor under the premise that something was better than nothing.  But it proved to be a failure and, as I hear, quite unpopular in Hampton Roads.  And my opinion as a NoVA resident is that there are too many overlapping regulatory functions concerning transportation and land use (The NOVA RTA just created one more).  I think that contributes to the ineffectiveness of planning for the needs for our region.  

If you really want this to be effective, the roles really have to be clearly defined between all the various regulatory bodies and jurisdictional authorities.  If we want to really create a new jurisdiction like a city that is then responsible for transportation across multiple existing jurisdictions, we should have done that.  But RTAs are not that.  And you cannot divorce transportation planning from land use planning.  If you are going to create an authority with power of transportation planning, revenues, construction, maintenance (the whole deal); you have to give those same people the authority to govern land use.  Denying them that ensures they will be  ineffective.  

As for voter tax referendums, good luck with that!  The Food and Beverage Tax failed in 6 of the 7 jurisdictions that had it on the ballot in November.  And they were planning on using that money for schools!  Incidentally, subject to the same part of the code that allows counties to pass a food and beverage tax via referendum, Arlington County is allowed to levy a meals tax on food sold at restaurants (no referendum required).  For those who pay attention, that is why you pay 9% in tax at restaurants in Arlington versus 5% in Fairfax.

While I usually agree with you, I don't agree that Bell is the bad guy here. The "work group of City Councilors and members of the Board of Supervisors" asked Del Toscano to draft proposed legislation that would create a local Regional Transit Authority that would be funded by a sales tax if authorized by referendum within the City OR County.

This funding mechanism would not only be a regressive tax but it would not be tied to any specific projects. So what we have here are local governments asking to raise money for transportation projects the local community may or may not think is a good idea - that is once they find out what they are. Yes, even Slutzky hedged his bet once he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce.

Frankly, if Democrats want to make this a partisan issue, they will come up on the short end of the stick. I am a Democrat but I think Rob Bell was correct when he said he needed more detail. If this somehow passed the legislature and was signed into law (which I seriously doubt) and a referendum was placed on the ballot asking for voters to approve an increase in sales tax for transportation projects that could not be explained, it would go down to defeat. This would also tend to blunt the shift to blue in Albemarle.

Now Dave Toscano is being a nice guy here - but he knows this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Where the heck is Creigh Deeds? He is a senator in this area, in a Senate controlled by the Democrats and he sits on the TRANSPORTATION committee.

January is still a ways away. I wouldn't be so eager to resign something to the dustbin of history that hasn't even been fully formed yet.  

Moreover, I think you might have misread the article.  It says, "...'draft priority project list' that accompanies the legislative proposal gave some specificity to the amount of funding for transit."  For emphasis, let me repeat: "that accompanies the proposal".  So it would appear that there is a project list, even if it is admittedly in draft form at this point.      

I think it's all fine and well for Delegate Bell to say he needs more information, but you seem to extrapolate from that quote the idea that he would be amenable to it if more information were provided; everything I know about Delegate Bell tells me that is not so.  There IS a list of projects; what does he want to know?  He doesn't seem to provide any specifics, which would be helpful if he were actually persuadable and just needed more information.  

Like some above, I think Delegate Bell is a decent person, but he is died-in-the-wool conservative as they come and ideologically opposed to taxes, period.

I hear your criticism of the fact that a regressive tax is being proposed, but there are two things I'd say to that.  First, the referendum should allay those concerns.  This thing doesn't happen unless the people want it.  Second, I'd love to know what ELSE you think might make it through the General Assembly?

I would really think twice about an RTA.  Head over to Bacon's Rebellion.  They are spot on about RTAs; they are bad news.

NOVA's RTA is insolvent (thank you, thank you! VA Supreme Court; and please, please, please don't let the GA try to remedy this).  But even if by some miracle the tax scheme devised by the GA was found to be constitutional, the projects do nothing to really address the transportation problem we have here.  Come to NOVA and see whether you think projects like improving parking and bus access at the King Street Metro or constructing a street car on Columbia Pike really addresses the problem.  And I say if you are not really fixing the problem, then keep your hands off my money.

I don't know what the situation is like in Charlottesville (having only visited the once to see Monticello).  But if you have a serious transportation problem, I highly doubt a RTA is going to fix that.  Most likely it will throw a lot of money around on small potato items and do little to really help anything.  Plus, as we have both pointed out in different arguments, times is tough.  So, if people are asking you for money, you better be sure that they are using it effectively and in a way that you get some sort of return out of it.

After seeing this idea in action, it has turned out to be only another way to make a dysfunctional process even more dysfunctional.  Quite the achievement when you think about it.  Sometimes it is better when Richmond doesn't try to help.

I actually thought I punted on the question of whether this was a good idea or not. I don't even know if I would vote in favor of such a tax to fund transportation -- I guess I'd want more details also, like what projects, specifically.

My purpose was to draw attention to Bell's comment that he would apparently oppose a tax even if it were approved by voter referendum. Does that mean he would actively work to thwart the will of voters? I read his statement to mean that his Republican ideology of all taxes are, ipso facto, bad trumps even the principle of majority rule.

If he had said, "Hey, I would oppose a sales tax referendum, and would vote against it, but if my constituents approve it, I would then embrace the  idea in order to implement their will," then I'd see it differently.

Perhaps that is what he was saying, and I misunderstood.

Maybe they will come up with something better than this by January. We can always hope. Perhaps by that time the "priority list" will evolve into something real that will be tied to the funding as a requirement.

The key here was that Bell asked for more information and I think that is reasonable. Now you are probably correct in that Bell may well object to anything, even a reasonable proposal. And as soon as this proposal moves beyond a pig-in-a-poke we'll all find out.

The Democrats in Congress sent the auto makers back to Detroit because they had no plan other than "give me money and trust me I'll spend it well". The auto makers came back with a more detailed plan and still went away without any commitments for funding.

It is clear that we have a transportation problem but we also have an economic problem and implementing a regressive tax at this time is not smart - especially when we have not fully developed a justification. Additionally, a regressive tax would likely work against possible funding initiatives we may see from the Federal government in 2009.

It would make sense to wait until we see what the Obama initiatives are regarding state funding assistance and then develop plans that would maximize that rather than push a partially developed plan that could be at cross-purposes.

Again, I don't want to blunt your efforts to beat up on Republicans, I just want public plans to be smart public policy. And if Democrats are going to take a shot at Republicans, just don't make it so easy for them to dodge it. :)

Debates like this are good. The purpose is not to beat up on Republicans, but over the short-term and long-term, to see good, common-sense policies enacted with the approval of voters. If Republicans put those forth, I'd happily vote for them.

Just a word about Bell. I've spoken to him a few times for stories I have had to write (non-political), and I always found him nice, responsive, easy to talk to, etc. etc. etc. My bigger problem is with the RPV, which has drifted so far to the right on some issues it is a parody of itself. Read its platform, and see how the party works hard, for example, to disguise it anti-immigrant -- no, that is not right, its anti-Hispanic -- attitudes behind various code words, at one point even lobbing the country of Mexico in with North Korea and Iran as a threat to its own peoples and the U.S. I mean, we can have differences with Mexico, but to suggest it is a totalitarian country whose interests are diametrically opposed to the U.S. is, frankly, absurd.

So no matter how nice a guy Bell is, when he chooses to put an R after his name, this is the worldview that he is supporting.