George Grayson: Stealth Socialist or Benign Central Planner?

Legislature candidates debate state and regional issues

Virginia House of Delegates candidates George Grayson (D) and Sid Lanier (R) stuck to the issues, most of which figured in the gubernatorial race, in a debate Oct. 12. Grayson, a professor of government at the College of William and Mary, has been Williamsburg's delegate for 19 years. Lanier is a brewery worker pursuing an M.A. in Public Administration at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is active in church groups. The Virginia Chapter of United We Stand America sponsored the debate at the Williamsburg Regional Library.

Grayson claimed responsibility for several bi-partisan reforms, including workfare, wetland protection, teacher testing, victim rights measures, a "drug kingpin" law, and drug-free school zones backed by mandatory sentences. He pointed out that the Fraternal Order of Police had endorsed him, and a small-business group had congratulated him for voting in its favor 86 percent of the time.

Lanier called Grayson a leftist posing as a moderate. He cited the candidates' clear disagreements on economics issues, gun control and school choice. He also described specific votes by Grayson which contradicted his putative moderate positions. Grayson was unrepresentative of his constituents, he concluded.

Both candidates have worked against a bridge at Jamestown and a reservoir in New Kent. Lanier opposes the "over-development" of Richmond Road, but Grayson's environmental vision is far more ambitious. He supports "proactive" central planning of all land development by regional authorities.

"We surely need real contemporary town centers," Grayson said in a position paper. "If we don't define where those centers should grow and what they should contain, we will be forever left with ugly and disjointed sprawl, with an incumbent disintegration of landscape and community spirit."

"Town centers" are a recent trend in urban planning. They are intended to make towns function as if zoning had never been imposed, undo the scattering effect of past and present zoning, and encourage walking. Grayson wants their numbers limited to protect them from competition.

Lanier had many proposals of his own. He called for reducing the sales tax. He wanted juries informed of defendants' records before sentencing. He proposed requiring welfare parents to keep their children in school, saying Grayson voted against this idea in 1990.

Instead of a government-run health system, Lanier favored allowing full tax credits to doctors who do pro bono work. This would have the effect of a full subsidy without distorting the market, he said. He generally favored reducing and privatizing government.

Grayson said Lanier's main ideas--tax credits, school vouchers, tax cuts, and new prisons--would drain too much money from the state government. Just ending parole would cost $2 billion, he said.

Both candidates said they opposed parole for violent criminals and wanted violent teenagers tried as adults. They claimed to oppose Outcome-Based Education.

Grayson supports the right to abortion. Lanier supports parental notification, and would ban most abortions if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Lanier criticized Grayson's vote to erect an $18 million lottery building at a time when 25 percent of Richmond office buildings were vacant. Grayson called it a sound investment. Lanier opposes the lottery and says he organized local churches to fight it.

However, it was not always obvious whether either candidate was candid about what he or the other supported, or how actively either had really worked on most issues. While Grayson was calm and polished, Lanier's repeated rhetorical attacks did not appear to impress an audience mostly composed of Grayson's own students and long-time neighbors. The assessment of Young Democrats president Greg Werkheiser '96 was that Grayson "whupped his butt."