Bob Marshall and Bruce Roemmelt squared off in editorials on Tuesday, over the transportation plan. Bruce’s editorial was well written, and had some nice points, like:
From my own perspective, I would have preferred a bill that relied less on borrowing. However, the choice was not between what we ended up with and a perfect bill, but between what we ended up with and nothing.
Roemmelt also attack Bob Marshall for voting no on the transportation bill:
Delegate Marshall’s no vote is especially ironic in light of this last point. For years, he has been pushing for something like this in bills that went nowhere. Finally, when given a chance to vote for impact fees, he decides to do exactly what the developers he is supposedly so opposed to would have wanted — he voted against impact fees.
…
Ultimately, my disagreement with Delegate Marshall on this issue comes down to a fundamental difference in how we approach government.
His approach focuses primarily on why a problem can’t be solved. I have a different perspective. I spent 20 years as a Firefighter in Prince William County and my focus, in doing that job, was on working as part of a team to help people solve their problems. When lives are on the line, you’ve got to have a “can do” attitude and be ready to work with others. That is the approach that Governor Kaine and Speaker Howell took in coming up with a transportation bill — a bipartisan and common sense effort that worked across party lines.
Now, compare this with Bob Marshall’s piece. I’ll quote the opening paragraph:
If the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority incurs debt based on the taxes levied by its appointed members, then bond rating agencies will apportion this debt to each member locality. This may prevent Prince William, Loudoun and the cities of Manassas or Manassas Park from issuing bonds on their own or at a favorable rate for necessary local projects, because of the debt limit imposed by the Virginia Constitution on cities and the Constitutional requirements in counties for voter approval of local debt or local taxes by the governing body. None of these requirements were part of the recently passed transportation bill.
Go ahead, read that over a few times until it makes sense. I’ll wait.
Marshall ends his piece like this:
Please read these portions of the Virginia Constitution, Article VII, Section 10 on the matter of local debt:
“No city or town shall issue any bonds or other interest-bearing obligations which, including existing indebtedness, shall at any time exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation of the real estate in the city or town subject to taxation, as shown by the last preceding assessment for taxes. In determining the limitation for a city or town there shall not be included the following classes of indebtedness:
(b) No debt shall be contracted by or on behalf of any county or district thereof or by or on behalf of any regional government or district thereof except by authority conferred by the General Assembly by general law. The General Assembly shall not authorize any such debt … unless in the general law authorizing the same, provision shall be made for submission to the qualified voters of the county or district thereof or the region or district thereof, as the case may be, for approval or rejection by a majority vote of the qualified voters voting in an election on the question of contracting such debt. Such approval shall be a prerequisite to contracting such debt.”
I have to admit, Marshall knows his law. What he doesn’t seem to know is how to translate his talking points into common sense language for his constituents. Does the Republican party just keep this guy away from people and let the “R” get him elected? I bet this guy is fun at parties. I will end with a truth that Marshall espouses:
If a vote of conscience alters the outcome of an election, so be it.
So be it, Bob.