Media lies for a sales tax hike

Virginian-Pilot's 22% sales tax hike campaign fails to state it would be subsidized sprawl on U.S. 460

[Editor's note: This is 5th in a series of articles taking issue with positions published by the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot by Robert O'Connor, president of Citizens Action Coalition Inc.]

Part V

On Thursday, September 26, 2002, the Virginian-Pilot presented the fifth part of a series of articles to continue their effort to convince you to vote for another tax for roads.

The article states that improvements to route 460 have been proposed "to improve hurricane evacuation routes and alleviate traffic on interstate 64." The article is not convincing and missing the mark on both stated purposes. John Moss, chairman of the Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance, hit the mark when he asserted that the improvements to route 460 would be "Subsidized sprawl."

The claim that we need a new hurricane evacuation route is an attempt to scare people. I have lived for 28 years one short block from the oceanfront. None of my neighbors, nor I, have even considered leaving the area because of a hurricane. When has there ever been a need to evacuate the entire population of Virginia Beach due to a hurricane? Answer - Never. The only residents who need to consider leaving are those near the oceanfront in Virginia Beach, Sandbridge and Croatan. The tourists, as well as residents will have days of advance warning. Anyone who should leave will have several days to leave.

And, we in Virginia Beach have just finished spending $147 million on a new seawall and big beach to protect us from a hurricane.

So there is no need to improve 460 just to provide a hurricane evacuation route.

Well then, what is the reason? The article states that the planners, "Believe the road would divert traffic from interstate 64 and ease congestion on the peninsula." Note the use of the word "believe." Where is the data to show that spending $618 million (2023 dollars) on 460 will reduce traffic on 64?

The real reason for improvement to 460, economic development, is confirmed by some of the proponents. One of those, Del. Jones of Suffolk, states that the road is critical to the region because it "stimulates economic development." Also, the article states that, "A major beneficiary of the road will be the ports." A vice-president of one of the top trucking companies agrees and said that, "Improvement to the highway would increase business for the ports."

Tax the locals to subsidize sprawl that will bring in more cars, people would drive more miles, and generate more pollution. Then we can start the cycle all over again.

Home

Newspaper's argument for I-64 widening fails to mention that it is for economic development & more traffic

[Editor's note: This is 5th in a series of articles taking issue with positions published by the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot by Robert O'Connor, president of Citizens Action Coalition Inc.]

Part VI

On Friday, September 27, 2002, the Virginian-Pilot presented the sixth part of a series of articles to continue their effort to convince you to vote for another tax for roads.

The article describes the widening of route 64 on the peninsula. The stated reason for the project is: "Because it is used by both local and through traffic, it's often congested." Instead of emphasizing how traffic will be relieved, the article stresses economic development. And then there is that disgusting threat.

Consider the following quotes from the article: "Community leaders consider improving I-64 vital to the economic health of the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads." A spokesman for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation complains, "The volume of visitors to Colonial Williamsburg is off almost ten percent this year." The executive director of the Virginia Port Authority is quoted as saying, "It would allow trucks to travel at posted speed limits and not just crawl along."

And then there is that infamous threat. A director of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission is quoted as saying, "The federal government and even the state government is looking more to equal partnership in funding. They will partner with those regions that demonstrate substantial local commitment." Then he issues the threat: "If we don't do this, the others aren't going to happen either."

That comes across as - Do as we say or to heck with you for all time. You will never get federal or state government funding for YOUR roads.

A solution, better than more miles of cement, includes moving jobs closer to where people live and using modern technology to communicate among offices. That would help get locals off the main highway. Unfortunately, this reasonable approach was not mentioned in the article.