The long road

The long road

There are 3 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Mar 11, 2008, titled The long road. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

There's an old newspaper lying around here with this headline: "Legislators' legacy includes likely 3 to 4 gas price rise." It's dated March 15, 1982.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

We need a real solution

AOL

#1 Mar 11, 2008
The local governments (and the citizens) of Hampton Roads have been duped into swallowing all the hot air from the HRPDC and summarily passed by the MPO; concerning the economic benefits of the PORTS. The process is presently skewed to significantly benefit the Commonwealth (69% of the take), while we are being told by those outside our region that we should pay for our own transportation needs locally. This upside-down logic has got to be exposed and changed.
By example: Delegate Chris Jones and others recently floated a proposal to raise the local sales tax by one percent, for transportation. While such a revenue steam may be a component part of the solution, it cannot be allowed to stand alone as the only method to solve the issues of funding the transportation plans to serve the PORTS first and local commuters and soccer moms second... So far there seems to be no effort to include any revenue streams from the PORTS and their COMMERCIAL interests, that gain so significantly from the efforts of the community to improve the roads. We all have heard the rallying cry from the PORTS and their supporters, to expand the PORTS by a magnitude of over five times, but apparently only if we pay for the infrastructure to support this effort. That alone is clear evidence as to why "they need these improvements" even more than the average citizen. The real issue to deal with in all of this must be a rational demand: that as the PORTS clearly benefit from the transportation projects proposed, and that they pay their weight and contribute to the cost of their present and proposed impacts!!!
We all know that our legislative delegation understands "Impact FEES", so why is there so much staged ignorance of the impacts on our local transportation networks by the PORTS commercial activities??? Clearly the only way that the issue of funding such a costly endeavor can e resolved, is that it must be spread across the users who benefit directly from the improvements and share rationally in the costs.
There must be balance in the funding of such costly transportation projects. This would include an mix of taxes, fees and tolls from all users. Also there must be recognition and accountability that these issues are so complex and intertwined that the only reasonable control agent, must be the Commonwealth. They hold a direct interest in these issues, via their economic interests in the PORTS of Virginia and as a result Richmond must take responsibility for the needs of the entire Commonwealth. We all now understands that they are not the PORTS of Hampton Roads ONLY... Clearly accepting such demands, a state-wide solution that is funded from a mix of revenues, balanced from those who benefit from the proposed improvements, is the only reasonable direction to proceed in. Until this simple issue is recognized and factored into the discussion, we will not have rational resolution. Delegate Chris Jones' proposal to raise the local sales tax will not meet this need and should be summarily rejected. It continues the failed thinking that the transportation needs of the Hampton Roads Region is a local problem, rather than a problem that must be solved to benefit the entire Commonwealth...
Roger A. Leonard, MPA
We need a real solution

AOL

#2 Mar 11, 2008
IThe local governments (and the citizens) of Hampton Roads have been duped into swallowing all the hot air from the HRPDC and summarily passed by the MPO; concerning the economic benefits of the PORTS, without much investigation of the real costs. This upside-down logic has got to be exposed and changed.

Our local delegation in Richmond is clearly not going to provide a unified response to these issues in recognition of the facts. By example: Delegate Chris Jones and others recently floated a proposal to raise the local sales tax by one percent, for transportation. The situation demands balance in the approach, where financial burdens of the transportation expansion efforts are assigned to all that gain from such improvements. So far there seems to be no effort to include any revenue streams from the PORTS and their COMMERCIAL interests, that gain so significantly from the efforts of the community to improve the roads. This is very troublesome, given the well established fact that such commercial interests and the PORTS are directly enabled by such infrastructure investments... The real issue to deal with in all of this must be a rational demand: that as the PORTS clearly benefit from the transportation projects proposed, that they pay their weight and contribute to the cost of their present and proposed impacts!!!

We all know that our legislative delegation understands "Impact FEES", so why is there so much staged ignorance of the impacts on our local transportation networks by the PORTS commercial activities??? Clearly the only way that the issue of funding such a costly endeavor can e resolved, is that it must be spread across the users who benefit directly from the improvements and share rationally in the costs.

There must be recognition and accountability that these issues are so complex and intertwined that the only reasonable control agent, must be the Commonwealth. They hold a direct interest in these issues, via their economic interests in the PORTS of Virginia and as a result Richmond must take responsibility for the needs of the entire Commonwealth. We all now understands that they are not the PORTS of Hampton Roads ONLY... Delegate Chris Jones' proposal to raise the local sales tax will not meet this need and should be summarily rejected. It continues the failed thinking that the transportation needs of the Hampton Roads Region is a local problem, rather than a problem that must be solved to benefit the entire Commonwealth...


Roger A. Leonard, MPA
Keyboard Commando

United States

#3 Mar 11, 2008
URINE TEST (I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work..

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though ...
Something has to change in this country -- and soon!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bath County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jenny Linsey (Mar '15) May 23 Amy 4
Stephanie Neal Jan '16 Maggie 1
Why not Wet or Dry Vote? Jan '16 state pastor elder 1
doctors leaving (Oct '14) Oct '14 justme3339 1
Christmas Mother Info (Oct '13) Nov '13 hmm 2
Mack & Debbie Horn sentening (Sep '13) Sep '13 lmfao 1
Courthouse Researcher (Oct '07) May '12 Wolfgang is ony c... 2
More from around the web