Purposeful process

We are wrapping up work on two related stories for Piedmont Business Journal which will next be in our readers’ hands in January.

For one story, we have been talking to top executives in a trio of major local companies, exploring their thoughts on how to get our economy going again.

During the interviews, we have asked them, as we have asked the young entrepreneurs whom we met for a second story on starting a business, whether American businesses, large and small alike, are unduly taxed and over regulated, as much of the current debate would have us believe.

We have gotten some interesting responses, both yes and no.

Without doubt, there are some pretty silly regulations on the books, many of these business leaders agree. That’s not to say that regulation isn’t there for a reason — bad apples and all that.

We were reminded of the development of these articles by Joel Barkman’s column this week in our real estate section.

Home builders’ associations are “showing...members and the residents of the commonwealth that we can push ourselves, voluntarily, much farther than if these measures were adopted and then watered down and muddled up by the typical regulatory process.”

His intent, Mr. Barkman writes, “is not to stir up bitter debates over the cost of regulation...in our homes; my intent is to leave the impression that education, advocacy, and voluntary action leads to excellence, quality, advanced practices, and affordability.”

We wish that we shared Mr. Barkman’s optimism. We don’t.

For the life of us, we cannot understand why it has become so fashionable to attack regulation, the latest examples being U.S. House proposals that would essentially gut government agency oversight.

The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 and the oh so clever REINS Act (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) are, supporters claim, designed to help small business.

That’s a claim without a great deal of basis in fact.

“Bills like the Regulatory Accountability Act and the REINS Act aren’t just a waste of time,” small-business owner Jim Houser wrote recently for American Forum. “In fact, they’re the latest move to shift risk and shift costs from narrow corporate interests (like big polluters and big banks) to small businesses.

“When politicians push this anti-regulatory agenda in the name of ‘helping small business,’ we need to call that what it is: small business identity theft. It’s stealing the good name of small business to drive an agenda that benefits narrow special interests at our expense.”

There’s nothing in the anti-regulatory effort for small business. There sure isn’t anything in it for the American public.

This is all something to consider given all the local discussion that took place around Election Day about trimming the procedures and regulations that have to do with Fauquier County development.

Nearly all the candidates got on that bandwagon, excepting Jim Stone, who has some insights we ought to respect from his years on the planning commission, and Peter Schwartz, who frequently noted that slowing down simply to slow down isn’t always such a bad idea when it comes to development that, once accomplished, is pretty much irreversible.

A lot of thought from some very smart folks has gone into making our process work.

No one would argue that we are not like other counties in that regard, as some of the candidates were quick to note during their campaigns.

We seem to be losing sight of the fact that that’s the whole point.