We have a lot of potential here, but for some reason, our leaders won’t make the best of it. Portland looked just like Norfolk in the 70s. They had blocks of vacant parking lots. New construction was taking place in the Portland suburbs and the central city was decaying. This is where our regions split. Hampton Roads kept spending money on new highways and infrastructure designed to facilitate new suburban construction. Portland, however, fought the idea that unrestrained growth was good for the region. Their biggest concern? That this new growth was destroying vital farmland, forestland, and other open space. They took their concerns to their legislatures and, after much debate, enacted some of the most comprehensive growth control regulations in the country. This accomplished their goal: protecting open spaces. It also had an unintended consequence. It forced growth back into the city. All of the money that would have been spent on suburbs was then available for the city. They opposed new highways and even fought to get some torn down. They used the savings from that to build a first class public transit system. One of the most important aspects of the new Portland was that they came up with a real comprehensive plan and stuck to it. For this reason, Portland is a well run, well designed city.

Back to Hampton Roads. While Portland was engineering a new city, Norfolk decided the best course of action was to tear ours down. Hampton Roads as a whole, spent a fortune building new highways to allow for quick driving to and from the suburbs. While Portland worked and grew as a region, Hampton Roads  cities decided to compete against one another. Each city had to fight for its share of new development, for is share of tourists, even for its share of defense dollars. For this reason, we live in a region with a half-dozen “downtowns,” each of them only a fraction of what they could be if they were built as one. We now live in a region with no pattern of employment or housing centers but rather a sprawling mass of congestion. While cities like Portland are the places-to-be amongst todays young people, Hampton Roads is not. Without finding some way to attract new younger residents, our problems will only get worse.

We need to get more forward thinking people in our elected offices from local to state levels. We need to learn from places like Portland and act accordingly. They aren’t perfect, but they still have alot to teach us. Projects like the Southeastern Parkway are a waste of money. New highways only serve to promote new suburbs at the expense of the rest of the region. Positive investments would include a true all-encompassing master plan for the region. This plan would include a well thought out fixed guideway mass transit system like light rail. It would also work to rezone the areas around transit stops to encourage high-density developments. An emphasis should also be put on expanding freight rail to take more trucks off the roads. Above all, Hampton Roads needs to formulate a plan to share revenue between cities, preferably by merging into one jurisdiction. People should not be afraid of a merger. They will still live in the same place. Taxes can even stay the same for each segment of the new city. The goal, however, is to create a region where growth in one part is good for the whole region. It won’t matter if a new tower is but in Downtown Norfolk or at Town Center. The increased tax base will pay for both areas. Once we have a region that can function as a region, we should split our collective economic development money between attracting the relocation of large companies and creating new businesses, preferably start-ups owned by recent graduates of local colleges and universities. The opportunity presented to graduates will encourage them to stay in the area. If they stay, their friends are more likely to stay and/or move to the area.

Hampton Roads can do this. We have to make our leaders know we will accept no less.

Posted via WordPress for Android

Norfolk City Council: Stop Pretending. The safety issue could have been fixed with a couple of flashing lights and a sign for under $1,000.

The city is buying this property to satisfy the claim of the owner that he lost value. Although, I am not sure that he has a claim. If he does, would that mean I could sue a neighbor for monetary damages because their house looks trashy? Regardless, if you want to buy it to satisfy his claim, then fine. Tell the truth though. If the city had said they wanted to buy it for a park, that would be fine. Don’t justify it because you think it would be safer.

Finally, our new councilman Mr. Protogyrou needs a lesson in regional administration. The Pilot stated:

“Let HRT pay for this,” Councilman Andy Protogyrou said. “This is their fault. It’s their mistake. I don’t see why Norfolk taxpayers have to pay for this.”

While I disagree that this is anybody’s fault and think that the city just wanted to pay back a property owner, I have to explain why it doesn’t matter who’s pocket this comes from. Since we have no tax stream dedicated to transit, HRT must get its money from four main sources: 1)Farebox revenue, 2)City Government, 3)State Government, and 4)Federal Government. Additionally, the current light rail project is structured to lay all extra costs on the city, so that Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, etc. are not paying money toward our project. That means, Mr. Protogyrou, that if the city made HRT pay for this, they would add their markup for management and then bill the city.

HRBT

The HRBT plan calls for a new, four-lane bridge/tunnel from the Peninsula to Norfolk. The existing lanes would be used for westbound traffic. Additionally, the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel and the James River Bridge will also receive upgrades. It would cost $4.5 billion and use tolls as high as $6 each way. These tolls would apparently be applied to the HRBT, the MMBT, and the JRB.

While nobody can argue that an expanded HRBT would ease traffic flow, I also do not think that anybody would argue that tolling all three crossings would not hurt our economy. As described, this project would give the Southside a serious disadvantage over the Peninsula. It would also negatively impact what weak regional drive for mass transit that we have. Alternatively, the “Third Crossing” would most certainly benefit our regional economy, even with tolls. Its multi-modal design would take cars and trucks off the road by allowing freight traffic and transit. The HRBT plan is designed simply to make money for those involved. The “Third Crossing” was designed to improve our regional competitiveness in the global economy. Money would still be made in a public-private partnership, but the impacts would be positive for the region.

US 460

Turning US 460 into an interstate-grade highway is a noble goal… if it were 1960. While it would certainly improved travel time to Richmond and aid in evacuations, it would not serve to increase the region’s competitiveness. The 460 project would make the Western Tidewater communities more appealing to industry and business, but at the expense of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Chesapeake. The new highway would only serve to expand the sprawl of Richmond towards Hampton Roads. I think it would be fair to define our region as anything within a 45 minutes drive. The US 460 project would make Isle of Wight County a mere 30 minutes away from Petersburg.

The money would be better invested in High Speed Rail. It has already been estimated that if we had true HSR from both Norfolk and Newport News, that we could operate with profits exceeding $30 million a year. That money could pay for a lot of transportation projects. The economic development that HSR would bring would also benefit the entire region, not just the outlying counties.

I am not against public-private partnerships. On the contrary, I think that they can bring much-needed capital to a tight state budget. We do, however, need to spend it wisely, in a way that will allow us to grow our tax base. This way, in the future, we will not have such a tight budget.

The International City Managers Association (ICMA) has a Code of Ethics that it expects its members to follow. Number 3 on their COE list states:

Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.

The guideline for Public Confidence further expands on this:

Members should conduct themselves so as to maintain public confidence in their profession, their local government, and in their performance of the public trust.

I do not want to detract from Ms. Williams’s past contributions. She has been City Manager for eleven years because, at one time, she had something to offer to the City of Norfolk. Until recent years, I would have agreed that she was doing a fine job. Unfortunately, times have changed. I firmly believe that in almost any situation, a person should not hold a position of authority for longer than ten years. What was good for an organization ten years ago may no longer be in its best interest. This is one such case. As such, Ms. Williams is operating the City of Norfolk in a way that is eroding the public’s trust in her and her office as well as the trust in City Council and government in general.

View

Hampton Roads Third Crossing in a larger map

The biggest question here should not be which road to widen, but how to fund the Third Crossing.  The estimated cost of the Third Crossing is nearly $6 billion (adjusted for inflation since 1997). That is obviously not going to be funded by Hampton Roads alone. $6 billion is approximately the same as the all of the Seven Cities’ budgets combined. This is the part where we need to get creative. The only way to get this built is to explore a combination of funding streams. Here is my plan:

First, we need to identify all stakeholders and get contributions. For example, the military will benefit from a Third Crossing, so they should chip in around half a billion dollars. The ports will benefit enormously, so the VA Port Authority should chip in around a billion dollars. The state should definitely chip in close to a billion dollars. The federal government is going to have to supply most of the money, perhaps 2.5 or three billion. The rest is going to have to be made up for with tolls. Of course, a Public-Private partnership could be reached that would allow the state, federal, and port subsidies to be reduced (but not eliminated). A one- or two-cent region-wide sales tax could also help reduce the subsidy from the state.

I know everyone hates tolls and taxes. I do to. However, nothing is free. Like I said, the cost of this project is the total of the budgets for all of the Seven cities. If we rely solely on the state or federal government, it will never get built. As for the HRBT, why waste $2-3 billion to build something that we may not need if we build the Third Crossing

G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

In other words, the city can send you a violation notice if you run a red light. It will be address to the registered owner. You can use the information contained on the violation to file an affidavit affirming that you were not the driver at the time of the violation. If you fail to pay or appear in court, the city must them serve a second summons. The next law tell the city how that summons must be served. § 19.2-76.3 says,

A. If any person fails to appear on the date of the return contained in the summons issued in accordance with § 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or town for service on that person as set out in § 8.01-296.
B. If such person then fails to appear on the date of return as contained in the summons so issued, a summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76. C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any person summoned under the provisions of this section shall be instituted unless such person has been personally served with a summons and has failed to appear on the return date contained therein.

That means that they have to physically serve you with a summons before you can be  fined for running the red light or for failing to appear. So what should you do if you disagree with the use of traffic cameras and you happen to run that red light? Forget about the violation. Chances are they wont serve you with anything. That costs a lot of money and cuts into the potential profits. If they do, its no big deal, just go pay the ticket.

Note: Running red lights is dangerous and you should never run a red light just in spite of it. Please, for the sake of everyone else, this is only for those times that you, say, don’t want to be rear-ended by the moron tailgating you three inches from your back bumper. Also, I have presented the text of the law for you to interpret and use as you see fit. While I have pointed out that the law requires the hand-serving of a second summons, my opinion does not constitute legal advice. If you want that, talk to a lawyer. Or, just don’t run red lights. If you do, it is your responsibility to know the law and to make appropriate decisions.

The consultant will consider a range of adjustments, including increasing bus frequencies on popular routes to encourage more ridership and reducing frequencies on less popular routes to save money.

HRT doesn’t need a consultant for this. Any frequent rider would tell you that if you increased frequency, ridership would increase. Lengthening the operating hours would do that as well. Regarding saving money by cutting low-performing routes, HRT cannot enact these changes. Each city would have to cut its own service. Route 18 in Norfolk has terrible ridership. HRT is aware. The City is aware. Unfortunately, the City of Norfolk will not kill the route for fear that the few riders that do utilize it will revolt.

Attention HRT: I will give you advice for free. Increase frequency at peak hours of high-ridership routes such as the #2, #3, #20, etc. On low performing routes such as the #18, modify the route to go places that people actually would want to go. For example, the #18 could continue down Cromwell, make a right on Tidewater, a right on Norview, and continue to the Airport. The southern end of the route would loop  and end in Grandy Village and Chesterfield Heights. This way the route would work as a feeder to light rail and serve Norfolk International Airport, with appears to be the only major airport without transit service. Ridership would also increase due to service to a number of apartment/condo communities and to multiple shopping centers. Routes like the new #14 could increase ridership by lengthening the route to accommodate development that has occurred since the route was originally developed. In order to fund expanded service, however, HRT will need more money. That money will probably not come from the cities, the state, or the federal government. They don’t have any extra money. That leaves a fare increase.

According to the VP, only 20% of HRT’s budget is covered by the current fare as opposed to the 40% covered at comparable transit agencies. That means HRT needs to raise over $14 million in fares to reach 40%.  HRT is diverting federal maintenance money toward operations. If this is continued, HRT’s infrastructure (buildings, buses, etc.) will deteriorate. There is no way a consultant will find $14 million in savings. I am not saying that a fare increase would solve all of HRT’s problems, but it would be a start. Unfortunately, a fare increase takes time to get approval. I am afraid that by the time this consultant is finished, the time will have passed where a 50 cent increase will no longer cover an expansion in services.

I think HRT should move forward with the fare increase immediately. I think that the HRT staff really do know what they are doing. If each member city would actually consider some of HRT’s suggestions, HRT could make positive changes without paying a consultant to suggest old ideas.

Council’s typical reaction to opposition to an agenda item is to either listen and then vote for it anyway or defer it to a later date in hopes that the opposition can not make that meeting. If opposition continues, it seems to be getting more and more frequent that they have to take out petitions and costly lawsuits to have their voices heard. The City of Norfolk should not be spending money to defend itself against its residents. We need to create comprehensive plans with input from the residents of the city. Then the city needs to actually stick to the plans. These past failings can be attributed to our city leadership. We need new leaders. The current leadership has served its time. If they want to run again after a term of someone else, more power to them. All organizations need a change after awhile.

1. Publication – The plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory remarks were published
2. Identification – The plaintiff must prove that he/she was reasonably identified in the remarks
3. Harm – The plaintiff must prove that the remarks are harmful to his/her reputation
4. Fault – The plaintiff must prove that the defendant is at fault

Councilman Burfoot can easily prove the first three. Without an admission of guilt, however, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to prove a particular person published something online. Additionally, according to the Supreme Court Case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, because he is a public official, he has to prove “actual malice.” In other words, on top of the main four things that he must prove, he also has to prove that the author published information that he knew was false. Good luck with that. All it takes is for the author to claim that he thought it was true and Mr. Burfoot’s case is dismissed.

Back to the actual website. It has been taken down. If you Google “may4thcounts” you can still get most of it through Google’s cached site. Unfortunately for anyone who wants to fact-check, the cached site does not include the images or the supporting documents.  At first glance, however, I don’t see how Mr. Burfoot could sue for anything. The site had news articles,photos, and public documents to support most of his allegations. A couple of things were suspect such as where he claimed that Burfoot had pushed for the MacArthur Center policy or that it has had a negative effect on the mall. Have you been to the mall lately? It seems to have more customers than ever.

Whoever the author of this site is, they appear to have connections somewhere. My guess is that they work for the city somewhere or have a relative who works for the city.  While I hope that they remain anonymous, since the Norfolk City Council would like to ban free speech in its entirety, I also hope that the author will post his website again to a different server. Better yet, I hope he would post a zipped file version of his entire site plus content to an online file sharing site such as http://www.2shared.com. If he does, I hope he posts a link to it here somewhere.

Regardless, good for him/her. Its about time someone stood up to a council member.