This morning, AOL carried a story about the “abuser fee” funding mechanism in the recently-passed transportation bill (lead paragraph on the story, which originally appeared in USA Today: “Virginia is for lovers, or so the state slogan has declared since 1969. Starting today, Virginia also will be the home of the $3,000 traffic ticket.”)
So it’s official: once again the nation’s eyes turn toward the Old Dominion, and don’t quite believe what they see. As was the case a few years ago with the “Droopy Drawers” bill, which  would have made a criminal of “Any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person’s intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner,” we’re on our way toward the national spotlight, and not in a good way. Next stop, Jay Leno.
There’s a difference, though: while the “Droopy Drawers” bill kind of flew under the radar until it hit the late-night shows, the abuser fees are an intentional self-inflicted wound. They were designed to plug a huge hole on the revenue side of the transportation package without bringing up the dreaded “T” word. (The Kaine administration deserves credit for insisting on bringing the proposal’s original pie-in-the-sky revenue projections back closer to the reality-based world.)
Well, then, why did so many of us vote for the fees? (The vote on final passage of HB 3202 was 85-15.) Mainly because omnibus legislation is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition: you don’t get to pick and choose among the good, the bad, and the ugly. For a lot of us from Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the separate regional transportation plans that were included in HB 3202 (both of which, incidentally, are funded with Real Money) were so crucial to our corners of the Commonwealth that we held our noses and voted for the bill.
With the growing furor over the abuser fees, a number of leaders have announced that the issue is likely to be “revisited” next year. Unless there’s a major change of mindset between now and then (think November 6), we’ll see a scramble to come up with some new alternative “out-of-the-box” revenue source to fund transportation. My guess: bake sales.
Bake sales, huh? That outta do it :)
Del. Brink, I understand the rationale behind voting for the omnibus transportation plan as a take-it-or-leave-it scenario, and I understand that a lot of delegates–particularly those in Northern VA and Hampton Roads, regardless of political party, knew that their constituents were losing faith in the ability of the GA to come up with any solution, “out-of-the-box” or otherwise, for our growing transportation problems. I do have two questions, however:
1. How “out-of-the-box” does it have to get before you’ll actually vote against the Republican proposal? Sarcasm aside, let’s say the next out-of-the-box proposal really IS a bake sale for transportation revenue: will you still vote for it under the rationale that something is better than nothing?
Again, let me reiterate that I understand that Democrats were essentially blocked out of the process in the House by the GOP, and I do not blame you for voting for this legislation. But I am curious as to where you as a legislator draw the line between what’s politically expedient and what your own good sense is telling you.
2. Can we count on you and Del. Amundson to help lead the charge on reversing this legislation during the next session of the GA? I’m sure I’m not alone in itching to challenge whether this is constitutional (unlike Del. Albo, I have my doubts as to whether the Judiciary is going to draw the same distiction between a fine for breaking the law and a tax for breaking the law, which appears to be the loose thread here). But doing that costs money, and it’d be easier for everyone if you all could come up with something that better reflects the political common sense of Virginians like Jefferson and Madison, as opposed to Albo and Rust. At the very least, we won’t look quite as stupid.
Thank you in advance for giving us this opportunity to discuss the legislation with us. I very much appreciate it.
Recently on WTOP Governor Kaine placed the blame for the new driver abuser fees on Delegates Albo and Rust. However, these abuser fees were promoted greatly by the Governor from the beginning of the Transportation Package negotiations. I just wanted to set the record straight on who was a vocal supporter of these abuser fees.
From his Aug 28, 2006 Money Committee Address:
Both Houses agree on abuser fees. The dangerous behavior of unsafe drivers threatens the safety of other drivers and causes accidents that create congestion. Those drivers should be financially accountable for their actions.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/Speeches/2006/JMC-Aug2006.cfm#9
From his Jan 10, 2007 State of the Commonwealth address:
Both houses agree that abusive drivers should pay stiffer fines to be used for transportation needs. To solve our funding dilemma, I have proposed a basic transportation financing package. Three elements of the package—proper use of existing auto insurance premium taxes, charges to abusive drivers and a commitment to using surplus dollars for transportation—require no new revenues from law-abiding citizens.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/Speeches/2007/SOTC.cfm#3
From his first transportation plan, six days into office 2006:
This plan includes enhanced fees for abusive drivers .
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=57
From his transportation plan announced Jan 2007:
Imposes an abuser fee on motorists who drive under the influence, drive recklessly, or commit certain other offenses.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=319
2006 Legislation introduced at the request of the Governor including SB 722 DMV; assessment of fees on certain drivers, use of fees collected.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+sum+SB722
So as you can see, Kaine hasn’t been honest with us when he says he knows little about this.
The trouble, to me, seems to be the threshold. Somebody who has been caught speeding just once doesn’t seem to meet the definition of an “abuser” to me. But somebody who gets traffic tickets routinely perhaps would.
I’d make up numbers here (more than X tickets in Y period), but I’d rather see actual frequency numbers, such as a normal distribution of the frequency with which individual drivers receive speed tickets. Perhaps it would make sense to take those who are above one standard deviation from the mean and subject people who receive tickets at or above that frequency to abuser fees.
Perhaps, too, it would make more sense to adopt a fine structure that’s contingent on the speeder’s income, as is done in some European nations. To a $20k household, a $3k speeding ticket is enormous. But to a $300k household, eh, whatever.
Abuser fees good, abuser fees as implemented bad.
Those of you who voted for this are one thing. Those of you who did not notify voters until after primaries what was involved in the wonderful transportation initiative you touted so loudly are quite another.
These fees are not bad. The fact they are enforceable ONLY against Virginia residents, while ignoring drug runners on I-95, and others who don’t live here, is more than arguable; it speaks volumes about what you think of Virginia residents.
Here’s how you raise transportation funds. Hire people, at, say $150/day or whatever. Deputize them to write tickets for the following, and only the following:
– failure to use headlights in inclement weather
– failure to use turn signals, especially when stopped in a travel lane to make a turn
– changing lanes in an intersection, or across solid lines
These alone should ease the transportation woes, and make those who IGNORE the law the ones who pay.
These fees violate substantive due process.
The legislature did not establish a connection between the actual cost to the commonwealth of the “taxable” infractions
and the surcharge. This makes the law arbitrary. While at it, why not make these “abusers” also pay for the construction of airports, which too have ease congestion on the roads.