Roanoke City Council asks General Assembly for power to tax more, take away property rights, install red-light cameras

In its last meeting, Roanoke City Council approved its annual wish list to submit to state legislators for the upcoming General Assembly session.

The legislative program contained much of the usual stuff – asking for permission to tax more; asking for more state money for schools, arts and cultural attractions, and transportation; and asking for the state to keep its nose out of local affairs.

A few items in the program should be noted, though.

The city council, claiming in the package’s introductory letter that it is “uniquely qualified” to represent and understand the legislative needs of “ALL the people” of Roanoke, wants to restrict more of your property rights, keep intact the unnecessary state tax increases imposed last year (and create more), and install red-light enforcement cameras that have been proven ineffective and unsafe (but profitable for government coffers).

Restricting your property rights

As if zoning ordinances aren’t oppressive enough with requirements for how many and what kind of trees you can plant in your yard and how big your fence can be, the city is asking for the power to require you to apply and pay for a building permit whenever you replace your roof, siding, or even your windows if you are located in a “historic district,” such as Old Southwest.

Council also opposes proposed reforms to the state’s eminent domain laws. Currently, the state and its local governments have the ability to condemn your private property and use it to build schools or roads, or for other public uses. The law has more recently been interpreted to allow them to also turn your property over to private land developers who will pay the locality more tax dollars than you will, because they will build an expensive mall or luxury condos in the place your house now stands. Legislators have proposed reforms to change the law so that the government can’t do the latter.

In many places, property owners refuse to sell to private land developers, so the developers turn to local governments and ask them to condemn the properties and turn them over so they can build on them.

Local governments, salivating at the promise of higher tax revenues from the increased property values, have been more than willing to commit this crime. In its legislative program, Roanoke City Council has told legislators that it opposes restrictions on its eminent domain powers, and does not want to limit the definition of “public purpose” to just true public uses such as schools, roads, etc.

More taxes

City Council says it opposes any measure “that would erode the revenue generating capability of the tax measures passed in 2004.” In English, that means they don’t want to roll back the unnecessary tax hikes the General Assembly enacted last year that are giving the state a $1 billion surplus (see my column of Nov. 18).

Oh, they will find a way to spend that extra money, rather than give it back to you – don’t you worry.

Council is also requesting legislation that “would allow for the development of funding from regional resources for cultural, historic and recreation amenities, such as a Blue Ridge Asset District.”

Translated again to English, an “asset district” is a bureaucratic term for a local tax where proceeds are devoted to funding specific programs. Council would like the state to create a new regional tax with proceeds devoted to funding local attractions, such as Center in the Square, the Commonwealth Games, etc.

The legislative program is also filled with other requests for local fee increases and more state money to fund programs. They are very typical and just too numerous to mention here.

Readers of this column should make it their mission to ask council members if they are leading by example and already donating extra money out of their own pockets to the treasury over and above their personal tax bills to fund all these things for which they want more money. An old standard in fundraising is that those who are asking for the money must show their commitment to the cause by donating their personal funds first, before asking anyone else to do the same.

Red-light enforcement cameras

For the past couple of years, State Sen. John Edwards championed the idea of red-light enforcement cameras for Roanoke, but his bills were defeated. Now city council wants to try again.

These cameras sound like a good idea for stopping people from running red lights, but studies show they are expensive, ineffective and have caused more accidents than they have prevented. Despite these facts, local governments still insist on installing them. Why? Because the cameras can hand out more tickets than a live police officer, which makes them very profitable for the city treasury.

The cameras are mounted at select intersections and take pictures of motorists (and their license plates) driving through intersections when the lights turn red. Tickets are then mailed to the car owners.

In the legislative program, city council makes the same old, disproved argument that red-light cameras “enhance public safety.”

A 2001 report entitled “The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?” researched by the non-partisan General Accounting Office of Congress, found some startling information about these camera enforcement programs.

In cities from California to right here in Virginia, traffic engineers have shortened yellow light times to catch motorists going through red lights. Reports abound of local governments tampering with light timing to increase revenues by handing out more traffic fines. (See my column of Jan. 21 for the full story.)

In Virginia, a 2001 study conducted in Fairfax County found that simply increasing the yellow time at a given intersection by 1.5 seconds reduced red-light runners by 96 percent, which was significantly better than the drop in violations resulting from the red light cameras they had installed.

Studies in three other Virginia cities documented reductions in red light runners of 79 percent, 77 percent and “virtually 100 percent” where yellow times had been increased by just a little more than a second.

In addition, rear-end collisions increase where red light cameras are located, as people skid to a sudden stop to avoid being caught and fined by the cameras.

The data show that the simple and inexpensive step of better yellow-light timing can produce a more significant safety benefit than expensive camera set-ups.

Conclusion

Roanoke City Council claims that it is representing you and your needs in its legislative program for the upcoming General Assembly session. Do less property rights, more taxes and more spending, and dangerous red-light cameras really represent what YOU want? If they don’t, then let your city councilpersons and state legislators know.