Page 2 of 3   <       >

Lawmakers Fearful of Traffic-Weary Voters' Wrath

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"We used to call it the Committee Against Counties, Cities and Towns," joked one lobbyist, who didn't want to be named for fear of offending the lawmakers on the committee.

U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) recalled his frustration with the legislature as chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in the early 1990s, when the county was growing rapidly. He said lawmakers in Richmond rarely viewed the issue of growth as a threat to reelection.

"The average voter didn't connect the state legislators to it," Davis said. "The problem is, the developers have always controlled the legislature."

But this year could be different, several lobbyists and lawmakers said, thanks to the high-profile backing of slow-growth legislation from Kaine and Howell and the fear of retribution from traffic-weary voters. All 140 members of the General Assembly are up for reelection this fall.

"Certainly a number of my colleagues feel that," said House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem).

For years in Virginia, it has been local officials who felt that fear.

In the 1980s, John F. "Jack" Herrity (R) led a pro-growth, pro-development Fairfax Board of Supervisors that was swept out of office by slow-growth candidate Audrey Moore (D). Four years later, she was ousted by Davis, who promised a more business-friendly development agenda.

In Prince William, growth and development wars have dominated the scene for years as supervisors debated growth limits, moratoriums and how to restrict growth in the western and rural parts of the county.

And in Loudoun, voters have seesawed between growth and anti-growth candidates. In 1997, they voted in a pro-growth board, only to change their minds four years later. In 2005, they flipped back again, ousting many of the slow-growth supervisors in favor of candidates who pledged to let the county grow more quickly. But even those supervisors have voted in recent months to limit growth, feeling pressure from constituents stuck in traffic.

If voters want to blame someone for traffic and crowded schools, they usually have started with their county supervisors.

But "I believe that has changed," said Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D). "People are connecting the dots to the state legislature in a way they never did before. We're tired of being blamed for something we didn't create and are not responsible for."

Members of both parties say the thing that has changed is the escalating aggravation caused by traffic -- and the political power of that issue.


<       2        >


More from Virginia

[The Presidential Field]

Blog: Virginia Politics

Here's a place to help you keep up with Virginia's overcaffeinated political culture.

Election Coverage

Election Coverage

Find out who is on the ballot in the next Virginia election.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company