Prince William County and Loudoun County Bypass Connection Bill Fails HB277

A right punch.

A left punch.

Down went HB 277, Dave Albo’s bill that simply asked the Commonwealth Transportation Board to determine a location for a Western Bypass.

Delegates Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) and Jim Scott (D-Fairfax/Merrifield) don’t often vote together on major issues.

But last Friday, they teamed up and delivered a right-left combination that defeated HB 277 in the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee.

The vote was 2-5 with Loudoun Delegate Joe May and Virginia Beach Delegate Bob Tata voting to send the bill to the floor of the House.

Had Lingamfelter and Scott voted “aye” the bill would have been reported 4-3.

Not only did Lingamfelter and Scott vote Nay, but they led the questioning of the need for a Western Corridor in the Subcommittee’s deliberations.

The irony and sad aspect of their actions is that absent a Western Bypass, Route 234 that runs through Prince William County becomes a de facto Western Bypass with increased passenger and truck traffic. A joint MD-VA study also showed that a Western Bypass would divert the equivalent of about 10% of daily traffic off the Capital Beltway that runs through Delegate Scott’s District.

In the public comment period prior to the vote the Alliance stated that 60 years of studies have documented both the need and numerous transportation benefits of a Western Corridor. The Alliance also pointed out that the Washington Airports Task Force studies have documented the Corridor’s importance to Dulles Airport and the significant economic benefits and jobs such a facility would generate. The Alliance further observed that virtually all major Northern Virginia business organizations listed that Bypass corridor as a major priority and that a 2009 Alliance survey showed 3-1 support for a Western Corridor including 62% in Fairfax County, 64% in Prince William County and 66% in Loudoun County. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority also testified in support of the bill citing the Bypass’ importance to Dulles Airport.

It’s complicated.

To further complicate matters, prior to the Subcommittee meeting, the bill was amended to include language that said, “No such bypass shall be constructed unless and until a corresponding facility has been constructed or is in progress in the State of Maryland and is available to be linked to the Virginia facility.” While this provision could always be amended in the future to allow for partial construction of the facility to serve Dulles Airport, it is an example of how difficult it is to get a clean bill focused simply on putting a line on a map through the General Assembly.

The other issue in play was the fact that VDOT had issued a “Fiscal Impact Statement” declaring that putting a line on a map would involve the expenditure of upwards of $9 million over three years to fund an Environmental Impact Statement, even though HB 277 did not specifically call for such a study. In a year in which the General Assembly is being asked to close a $4 billion budget shortfall, any bill that even hints at requiring additional funding faces tough sledding.

However, the actual need for a Bypass and whether local government’s supported it, not the potential EIS cost, were the main focus of the Subcommittee’s discussion.

Bottom line: Documented transportation need and benefits, economic benefits, importance to Dulles Airport, strong business community and public support were not sufficient to persuade Delegates Lingamfelter and Scott to vote yes.

Consolation can be found in the fact that the need for regional bypasses or the metropolitan Washington area is recognized in the new VTrans2035 statewide strategic plan.

Thanks to all that contacted legislators in support of this legislation.

Bob

Bob Chase
Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance
7600 Colshire Drive, Suite 215
McLean, Virginia 22102

FHA WAIVES THE "FLIPPING" RULE

In a somewhat surprising announcement, FHA has announced that it is waiving the property flipping rule for one rule starting February 1, 2010, with regard to subsequent sales by purchasers. Here is the link to the waiver:

Flip Rule Waived

In the waiver, FHA said it was taking this action to address the foreclosure crisis.

The waiver is limited to sales meeting the following conditions:

All transactions must arms-length; no identity of interest between buyer, seller or third parties.

Ways to ensure no unacceptable arrangements include: Seller holds title, LLCs, corporations or trusts that are serving as sellers must meet applicable State and Federal law

No pattern of previous flipping activity exists on property (as evidenced by multiple title transfers w/i 12 month)

Property marketed openly and fairly (Any sales contracts w/ “assignment of contract of sale”) may be a red flag

Sales w/ 20% increase over seller’s acquisition cost will only be permitted if the lender:

Provides supporting documentation and/or second appraisal which substantiates increase in value (I.e. renovation or rehabilitation)

Orders a property inspection and provides it to the purchaser. (Borrower may be charged for inspection.)

Waiver provides what the inspection must review and other requirements

Waiver is limited to forward mortgages

Timing:

The waiver is effective beginning on February 1st for one year. The waiver also includes the language “with regard to subsequent sales by purchasers”. While it appears this waiver applies to new sales, we will check w/ FHA to see if it can be applied to sales that have already occurred and did not meet previous exemptions.