Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 17, 1994 TAG: 9403180058
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The new man at the top, Gov. George Allen, was, by turns, confrontational and conciliatory. Democrats, stunned by the loss of the governorship, and holding slim majorities in the legislature for the first time in more than a century, united in defense of what ground they held and offered politically appealing palliatives that Allen may be forced to swallow.
But Allen got the big plum as engine-driver for the scheme of inducements to bring Disney's America to Prince William County. Democrats, led by House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell, pared the governor's original proposal and required Disney to accept more financial responsibility. These modifications were by no means unreasonable and might have been carried a bit further. While there was always a chance that legislative intransigence could cause Disney to pull out, that wasn't likely.
Disney either owns or has options on 3,000 acres in western Prince William and obviously has invested millions maturing its vision. Moreover, this site, so near Washington, D.C., and a quarter of the nation's population, on a main highway corridor, is close to being ideal for what the company wants to accomplish, which is to present a destination vacation for those millions of Americans who can't easily contemplate a trip to Disney attractions in Florida and California.
Still, the road improvements that are the core of the state's commitment don't really exceed the commonwealth's normal obligation to serve any major attraction and its numerous customers. A single regional mall anywhere in Virginia can easily cost the state $25 million in highway upgrades to accommodate the traffic, and you can't compare the economic-development potential of a shopping center with something like this.
Disney will certainly take some trade from such existing destinations as Colonial Williamsburg, but it will bring in much more new business. It's up to other localities and attractions to find ways to shag some of it. The package includes funds for a Virginia visitors' center at the park that ought to be a showcase for the entire commonwealth.
For years, Democrats on the committees on Courts of Justice have turned down various get-tough measures dealing with chronic felons and drinking drivers while Republicans happily thumped the refrain, "Hit 'em again, harder, harder." But Allen's winning law-and-order campaign changed the equation and Democrats like Cranwell scrambled to get in front of the stampede.
Allen had sensibly argued for a special session of the legislature later in the year to deal with the entire subject of sentencing and parole in a comprehensive package. Democrats knew this would be seen as the governor's baby and said, "Why wait?"
Cranwell, who was as busy this session as the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest, countered Allen with a three-strikes-and-you're-out bill for those convicted of a third serious felony (life imprisonment - no possibility of parole) and much tougher sanctions for drinking drivers.
The drunken-driving bill as passed provides an automatic seven-day license suspension for any driver over age 21 with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent. That translates, roughly, to four to six shots of hard liquor - or beers - one to two hours prior to the test being administered, depending on body weight. Drivers under 21 testing as low as 0.02 percent would lose their licenses up to six months. That translates to a single drink being sufficient to sustain a charge of drunken driving for those under 21.
The bill more sensibly provides a 30-day mandatory impoundment (up to 90 days at the discretion of the court) of the vehicle of anyone caught driving intoxicated after having their license suspended for drunken driving. There is a hardship loophole, but the bill also extends a penalty to those who knowingly permit their vehicle to be used by someone whose license has been suspended or revoked.
Allen and Mary Sue Terry started the bidding war over lowering the blood-alcohol level for drunken driving. While no drinking and driving is certainly ideal, when the law tries to be too tough it often conspires against its own fair enforcement, and that is likely the case here.
We might put some of this in perspective by consulting data compiled by the Department of Motor Vehicles. In 1992, there were 38,253 arrests for suspected drunken driving. 3,257 were found to have a blood-alcohol content less than the current standard of 0.10 percent and weren't charged. 2,029, or less than 5 percent of all suspects, tested between 0.08 and 0.10 and would have been charged under this bill.
Virginia and the nation certainly have tried to deal with rising levels of crime by locking more people up. And there are respectable studies that indicate society comes out way ahead in purely monetary terms when it keeps career criminals in jail. But someone age 30 who gets his third strike (conviction) for a serious crime and must spend the rest of his days behind bars may live another 50 years and cost the state several millions in upkeep. Since he has little to lose (or gain), he may also present special problems in the system.
A better approach might be more severe penalties for the first or second serious crime in the hope a message will be received before it's too late. There are sociopaths aplenty, and they ought to be taken out of circulation for an exceedingly long time. But turning our prisons into geriatric wards may cost us a lot more than we gain.
Allen dares not veto this bill outright, but the issue should have been held for the assembly's special session, now wisely delayed until September to give the governor's commission on sentencing and parole time to mature its proposals. It is tremendously important that whatever is done in this sphere be done right.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB