June Primaries Accelerate Virginia’s Leftward Drift

Posted on June 12, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

It’s hard to dissect a battle while the smoke is still clearing, but the June 11 Virginia primaries demonstrated again the state’s continued and steady move away from its conservative past.  It was not a Great Leap Forward for the progressive elements of the Democratic party, but where they didn’t win, they applied some serious heat.

Case in point, Senator Minority Leader and ultimate inside player Richard Saslaw of Fairfax, who only survived because the 51 percent of voters who rejected him had two liberal choices and split their votes.  Case in point, former and once-disgraced delegate Joe Morrissey, who defeated long-time incumbent Senator Rosalyn Dance for the seat stretching between Richmond and Petersburg.  Dance is no conservative but has proven willing to work across the aisle.

Morrissey’s comeback, focusing on a fairly classic time-for-a-change theme, demonstrates another key point.  Democrats are more forgiving of various political sins and always have been.  If they can forgive Morrissey, why should any Republican be surprised that the scandals surrounding Governor Ralph Northam, Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax and Attorney General Mark Herring haven’t destroyed them?

Primaries are about partisans and the general electorate in November will be swelled by moderates and independents, but no GOP strategist can assume a Democratic turnout depressed by those embarrassed statewide leaders.  Northam in particular is back in position at the head of that parade.

Republicans watch in amazement time after time as Democrats suture up their coalition in time for the general election, but never seem to learn the lesson on display.

Political parties are built from the ground up.  Future governor Jim Gilmore entered the game more than 30 years ago by winning as commonwealth’s attorney of Henrico County, once solid Republican territory.  Do we see the future now in either of the two very liberal Democrats nominated for that same job in Fairfax County and Arlington County?  George Soros and other national Democratic donors clearly do, having poured unprecedented funding onto both campaigns, enough to raise eyebrows at The Washington Post. 

In several other instances around the state (but not all), the Democrat with the more-liberal reputation or message prevailed in a contested primary, and no Democrat won touting their cooperation with Republicans or support from business.  With Saslaw’s near escape and Dance’s defeat, and the other signals from around the state, it is hard to imagine any Democrat in Virginia’s population centers campaigning as pro-business.  One business in particular, Dominion Virginia Energy, is likely to remain a popular target.

The opposite trend was demonstrated in several, but not all, Republican contests, with the more conservative reputation prevailing.  But the broad business issue that dominated in some key races – Medicaid expansion — was supported by the broad health care industry and their allies and opposed by base GOP voters.

Senate Finance Committee co-chair Emmett Hanger of Augusta County held on against a challenger upset over his support for Medicaid expansion, but less-well-entrenched Delegate Bob Thomas of Fredericksburg lost to a challenger in part on the same issue.  Delegate Chris Peace of Hanover County, who will or won’t be on the ballot in November depending on internal party arguments still underway, also lost his way with the GOP base on that issue.

Thomas’ 28th District along the Fredericksburg to Quantico stretch of Interstate 95 will be a battleground in the effort to maintain the narrow 51-seat Republican majority in the House.  Now the GOP loses the advantage of running an incumbent in that very competitive district.  Open seats all around the state will be the key in both chambers in November, many of them competitive districts.  With no incumbent bragging about seniority or delivered bacon, voters focus on ideology and specific campaign promises.

The 17 open seats will test and perhaps finally prove the theory that Virginia is now a more liberal and solidly Democratic state, fully blue, not merely purple.

Two Democratic delegates who rode the 2017 wave to carry Republican leaning districts are seeking to move up to the Senate, one in Virginia Beach and one in the Richmond area.  The seats they leave open will need to return to the Republican column for that party to hold its majority into the next session.

A few more of the 2017 wave seats are also crucial to that goal, because a new court-ordered district map will add several Democrats elsewhere.  Republicans have 42 incumbents on the ballot (43, if Peace gets there) and Democrats have 44.

Three Senate seats opened by GOP departures are the only path to the Republicans continuing to hold their 21-seat Senate majority.  The Democrats have 18 incumbents (Saslaw included) seeking re-election, none of them seriously challenged.  Morrissey is unopposed, as well.  The Republicans have 18 incumbents (Hanger included) seeking re-election, but with several of them seriously challenged.

That leaves the Democrats free to concentrate money and labor on the two open GOP seats, with Republicans needing to spread their efforts and energy.  If the best defense is a good offense, it works even better if the other team has zero offense.

The two open seats, Loudoun-based Senate 13 and Virginia Beach’s Senate 7 voted strongly for Tim Kaine over Corey Stewart, comfortably for Governor Ralph Northam, and were at best competitive in the higher-turnout 2016 presidential contest.  They can no longer be classified as safe Republican.

They were middle-class center-right suburban territory that shifted toward Republicans 40 years ago and built the reputation of a young Larry Sabato as a political sage.  Sabato (and the rest of us) have aged, those suburbs have changed, and now once again they will determine Virginia’s political fate.  That much at least has not changed:  as go Virginia Beach, Henrico County, Prince William County, so goes Virginia.


E-Mail this author

Posted in Politics, State Government | 2 Comments

Want More Affordable Housing? Try Free Markets

Posted on June 11, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Exclusionary regulation at the local level is the root cause of unaffordable housing, and a rollback of exclusionary regulation is the best long-term solution, argue Salim Furth and Emily Hamilton, research fellows at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

“Contemporary American land use law embodies the bad idea that private land ought to be publicly planned. In practice, these plans routinely exclude low-income families by indirect means, causing income-based segregation,” they write in an attachment to April 2, 2019, testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services. 

Exclusion is widespread: most jurisdictions, through zoning ordinances, ban apartments and manufactured homes in all but a few locations. Single-family homes are usually allowed, but only in specified areas and often on lots larger than many buyers want. As a consequence, those states that give the most power to planners and the least authority to property owners have abysmal housing growth rates. When wages rise in those states, rents and home prices soar.

The debate over unaffordable housing is intensifying around Virginia. We hear it in Northern Virginia where community activists fear that highly paid workers at Amazon’s HQ2 project will drive up housing prices and displace the poor. We hear it in Richmond where community activists are fighting to make it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants. We hear it in Charlottesville, where gentrification is equated with racism. In almost none of these places do Virginia’s economic ignorami acknowledge that the underlying problem is the inability of the housing industry to build enough housing to keep pace with demand or, to put a finer point on it, to build enough of the specific types of housing that are in demand.

The Furth-Hamilton essay provides a valuable overview of the problem and concludes with a detailed list of policy points which, if enacted, would go a long way to addressing Virginia’s affordable housing issues. They write:

Rising  home prices in cities with growing populations are not a law of nature. In Living Downtown, Paul Froth describes how low-cost apartments, long-term hotel rentals, and single-room occupancies provided affordable housing for low-wage workers in America’s fast-growing cities in the past. Today, single-family zoning, minimum unit size requirements, and single-room occupancy prohibitions have largely eliminated new construction of these market-rate affordable housing typologies. 

In contrast, cities that have continued to allow new housing construction have avoided skyrocketing prices. Houston has exemplified a pro-housing regulatory approach, voting down zoning, shrinking minimum lots sizes, ending parking minimums downtown, and fast-tracking permitting. During a period of high demand, while the city’s population increased by half a million people, median Houston home prices topped out at $235,000, less than the national median. As a result of pro-housing policy, Houston households across a broad range of incomes can find housing that they can afford. … 

The emergence of the environmental movement in the 1970s provided a reason homeowners could organize against new development in their neighborhoods and cities while pretending not to benefit their narrow financial self-interest. Over time, this opposition resulted in regions where very little housing construction has been permitted, and increases in demand have driven prices up as a result. …

On the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, America’s housing markets are more segregated by income than at any time since the act was passed and possibly in the history of the nation. Housing is increasingly bundled with community amenities including schools, access to employment opportunities, public services, and neighborhood peer effects. This has occurred because local governments, including many [Community Development Block Grant] entitlement communities, prohibit housing construction in the quantity that would serve low-income families.

The rising inequality in cost between metro areas now overshadows the inequality within most metro areas. For instance, metro Dallas has maintained affordability even in desirable suburbs, while the San Francisco Bay Area has allowed rent to skyrocket even in poor areas. Thus, Zillow data shows that the median two-bedroom rental listing in Frisco, Texas — an affluent suburb of Dallas with an excellent school system — is $1,600 per month. In Oakland, California, where three out of four school children quality for free or reduced price meals on account of their low family incomes, the median is $2,895 per month.

The incentives of developers are generally signed with the goals of the Fair Housing Act. Where demand is high, they have an incentive to use land more intensively: building smaller units in denser clusters that accommodate more residents. Construction is a competitive industry that should be expected to bring real estate prices down to close to costs. The difference between construction costs and prices is a city’s “zoning tax” — as much as 57% of the cost of housing in Manhattan.

So-called “inclusionary” zoning is not an effective answer, the authors argue. Mandates make multifamily projects less financially viable and in some places actually may increase rent and exacerbate segregation. “Top-down land use requirements can be a poison pill that causes markets or local policymakers to shut down development altogether.”

Those who suffer the most from restrictive land use policies are, of course, low-income Americans… who are disproportionately minorities. More likely to be excluded from affluent cities and suburbs, they remain immobile and do not participate in the economies of regions where employment and wages are growing.

So, what is to be done? The authors offer these suggestions:

Expand by-right housing development

  • Expand multifamily zoned areas by at least 1 percent of the land area of the jurisdiction
  • Allow duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes in at least one-fourth of areas zoned primarily for single-family residential
  • Allow manufactured homes in at least one-fourth of areas zoned primarily for single-family residential
  • Allow multifamily development in retail and office zones
  • Allow single-room occupancy development wherever multifamily housing is allowed
  • Reduce minimum lot sizes by at least 50 percent in at least 25 percent of residential zoned areas
  • Reduce the number of buildings protected by historic preservation by at least 25 percent
  • Increased the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) by at least 25 percent in multifamily areas that must cover at least 5 percent of the land in the jurisdiction
  • Create transit-oriented development zones that account for at least 5 percent of the city’s residential zones and allow for a FAR of 10 or greater

Reduce costs of development

  • Eliminate parking minimums
  • Adopt parallel-process permitting
  • Establish one-stop permitting
  • Allow prefabricated construction
  • Eliminate minimum unit size requirements
  • Eliminate architectural standards other than those required for safety

Expand use rights in existing building stock

  • Adopt land value taxation
  • Adopt additive zoning
  • Adopt form-based zoning
  • Adopt non-zone-based regulatory frameworks
  • Adopt pre-approved plans for accessory dwelling units, single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes
  • Reform subdivision regulations to allow for traditional mixed-density and mixed-use neighborhoods in new development

The main drawback of this presentation is that Furth and Hamilton do not address the “externalities” of greater housing density and the population growth it enables — particularly transportation congestion, water/sewer/storm water and other infrastructure, new schools, and taxes.

A couple of quick observations: First, as the authors themselves point out, every housing strategy has externalities. The primary externality of the prevailing housing policy is … unaffordable housing. Which is worse — traffic congestion or unaffordable housing? The answer, I suspect, depends largely on how much money one makes and how much value one puts on one’s time.

Second, higher density creates its own transportation solutions. With greater density, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, a greater variety of destinations are accessible by foot, mass transit becomes more economical, and car trips are shorter when they do prove necessary.

Third, mixed use development at higher density requires less investment in roads/public works/utility infrastructure per household than does low-density, sprawl-style development. The fiscal footprint is lighter, ameliorating some of the need for higher taxes.

Bacon’s bottom line: Let free markets work.

This commentary originally appeared in the June 2, 2019 edition of the online Bacon’s Rebellion.

bacon-90Email this author

Posted in Housing | Comments Off on Want More Affordable Housing? Try Free Markets

USMCA: Good For Virginia’s Economy

Posted on June 11, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

International trade is now a regular topic of conversation across the Commonwealth and the U.S.   Last year, Virginia manufacturers exported $15.11 billion in goods.    In particular, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will accomplish what many thought impossible nearly a year ago – freer markets and fairer trade.  Now, Congress has to do its job and ratify the USMCA trade agreement to secure the future of international trade for all Virginians.

The USMCA will replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Virginia manufactured goods exports to just Canada and Mexico was $4.11 billion last year which represents nearly 27% of Virginia’s total manufactured goods exports.  So it is critical that Congress assures us a future in which we can compete fairly with our primary trading partners.  Elected officials need to be reminded that the USMCA’s ratification is not just about companies – 20% of all manufacturing employment in VA depends upon international trade.  The average annual compensation of manufacturing workers is also over $70,244 per year.  We also find that some folks may want to discount the USMCA as only benefiting larger companies but 86% of Virginia’s exports are from small businesses.

There are also some specific provisions of the USMCA that are important to highlight.  It has added protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights; it addresses non-tariff barriers related to trade in re-manufactured goods, import licensing, and export licensing; its rules of origin encourages more goods and materials to be manufactured in the United States; it contains the strongest regulation of digital trade of any international agreement; and, its new enforceable labor
standards will level the playing field for American workers.

The Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) is committed to increasing Virginia manufactured goods trade 50% by 2025 and the USMCA is part of that goal.  The VMA’s Commerce Committee will continue to monitor the USMCA and other trade agreements to advise the VMA Board and membership. Additionally, the VMA is a founding member of the Virginia International Trade Alliance (VITAL) and offers international trade assistance and resources to members through the trade network of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership.  The VMA is also developing a new program to assist members that are adversely impacted by imports through leveraging US Trade Act resources to compete in the global economy.

The USMCA will require compromise and an acknowledgment that no agreement is perfect.  It will also require a Congressional translator to explain bipartisanship.  The USMCA is many things, but it is not “Red” or “Blue” or “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Democratic/Socialist,” it is purely a business deal for the betterment of the people and manufacturers in the United States, Canada and Mexico.  Every business – large or small — should encourage Virginia’s Congressional delegation to ratify the USMCA – it is pro-manufacturing, pro-worker and pro-small business.

Brett Vassey is President & CEO of the Virginia Manufacturers Association.

–
E-Mail this Author.

Posted in Economy | Comments Off on USMCA: Good For Virginia’s Economy

Texas Judge Sinks WOTUS Rule

Posted on June 11, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

A U.S. District Court judge in Galveston, Texas has decided the Obama administration’s 2014 definition of “Waters of the United States” took place without complying with the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The Obama EPA “…wanted to ensure that the [Clean Water] Act enabled jurisdiction over a particular category of waters which either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region significantly affect[ed] the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas.”

The judge discussed an EPA document called the Draft Connectivity Report. This document essentially said that all waters are connected directly and that EPA, from a scientific standpoint, could or should regulate every drop of water on private property. The Connectivity Report basically said all water runs downhill and from a scientific standpoint it all should be regulated. (By the way, this is the exact opposite of what the Clean Water Act directed.)

The court describes how EPA and the Corps of Engineers allowed all parties an opportunity to comment on the Obama Administration initial proposed rule. During this period the EPA Connectivity Report was finalized. However, the Obama-proposed WOTUS rule was never open for public comment “after” the final Connectivity Report was issued. Six months after the Final Connectivity Report was issued, EPA and the Corps released the final WOTUS rule (June 29, 2015).

All will recall the explosive reaction against the Obama Administration proposed WOTUS definition. Landowners all over the country were up in arms against this outrageous grab for power. Trump’s campaign promise Candidate Trump raised this issue frequently during his campaign for President. He promised that one of his first acts as President would be repealing this terrible property grabbing effort by the Obama EPA and the Corps.

There was a major problem however. The final Rule parted from the proposed WOTUS rule in one key aspect. Mainly, the Final Rule defined ‘adjacent waters’ under the Act using distance-based criteria, rather than the ecologic and hydrologic criteria used in the Proposed Rule. Also, in the Proposed Rule adjacent had been defined as bordering, contiguous or neighboring; The Final Rule changed the term neighboring to mean all waters located within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water mark and if your water was located within a 100- year floodplain it would be under EPA jurisdiction 1,500 feet from the high tide line.

The court noted this was the first time EPA and the Corps had ever defined adjacency with a precise numerical distance. Numerous farm groups, along with the Texas Attorney General, sued EPA and the Corps claiming the Obama administration violated notice and comment requirements of the APA.  It was further claimed the Obama Administration denied interested parties the opportunity to comment on the Final Connectivity Report.

At the time, I wrote that the Connectivity Report was a dangerous document for agriculture, ranching and forestry. And it turned out the report did form the foundation for the Obama definition of WOTUS. Now, this Texas court said: you cannot do that. The Obama EPA and the Corps pulled a fast one and got caught by the federal judge. The court blasted EPA and the Corps, saying that notice and comment requirements are “hardly trivial” because “requirements are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”

It took a U.S. federal district judge and farm groups to catch the Obama EPA and Corps violating the law!

This commentary originally appeared in the June 4, 2019 edition of the online Farm Futures.

Email this author

Posted in Agriculture | Comments Off on Texas Judge Sinks WOTUS Rule

Northam Wrong On Domestic Violence Bill Veto

Posted on May 30, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

On a typical day, there are more than 20,000 phone calls placed to domestic violence hotlines across the country according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. That is 20,000 families suffering from violence at the hands of an abuser.
The goal of our bipartisan legislation put forward by Democrat Delegate Kathleen Murphy and me was simple — give those who have been victimized by domestic violence multiple times a period of safety during which they could take actions to break the cycle of violence.
By the time an offender would have been covered by our legislation, the abuser would typically have been arrested and brought to court a minimum of three times. Virginia has a program in place that diverts first-time offenders into counseling programs in a nod to restoration, rather than punitive justice.
At the first actual conviction, the offender can face jail time. Most don’t receive it. At the second conviction, jail time would seem like a certainty. When we looked at this problem, however, we were shocked to find that jail time is the exception rather than the rule for such repeat offenders. Our bill would have mandated two months in jail for those chronic abusers who have received this second conviction in 10 years, which is often the third time around for many who received “first offender” treatment previously.
According to statistics from the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, those convicted for a second time of Assault and Battery against a family member in the 10-year window covered by the bill get no jail time in 53 percent of cases.
Judges have the ability to sentence offenders to jail, but they also have the ability to “suspend” those sentences — jail time disappears unless the offender commits another offense or violates some other dictate form the court.
Virginia vests her local judges with tremendous amounts of discretion. They’re called judges for a reason. But there are some instances where the General Assembly can, speaking through legislation, correct actions taken by the judiciary that are contrary to the public good.
Here, our goal was to provide affirmative support for those victimized multiple times. By removing the abuser from the equation for two months, we had hoped to provide a period of relative safety. Victims could move, take legal action to dissolve the relationship, get additional court-ordered protection, and find emotional and financial support for them and their children.
Governor Northam argues that our bill would disproportionately impact communities of color, and following his admissions from February, he says this was an attempt at repairing his badly damaged reputation in the African American community. The implementation of current law suggests strongly that his opinion is incorrect. VCSC reports that the incarceration rate of both white and black offenders is almost statistically identical
Ralph Northam is a physician. He knows the physical and emotional pain that can be caused with a fist or a weapon, yet he chose to help his political career as the expense of survivors of domestic violence.
Republicans and Democrats in the House as well as the Senate sent this bill to the Governor’s desk by huge majorities, I plan to do that again in 2020. I would strongly urge Governor Northam to right his wrongs from the 2019 session and allow survivors to have the relief from their abusers that they deserve. The survivors of abuse, and Virginians as a whole, deserve better.

E-Mail this Author

Posted in Crime, State Government | 2 Comments