The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 23:05 On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just >>>>taxes aimed at transportation. >> >>> And you think roads are not? >> >>I've been over this already. > > So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows > that the same is true for roads. It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather distant from me, that I have no use for. The 'non-transportation' taxes that I pay that go to roads, go to the roads that are very close to my property. The taxes I pay that are supposed to go to roads go to practically anything else the state decides to apply them to.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 4 Nov 2009 23:52 Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com said: >> On Nov 4, 10:18 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> One of the biggets problems with sprawl is that the taxpayers who live >>> in the older areas of the city end up paying for all the new >>> infrastructure that are needed by new developments. In CA we have a >>> law called "Mello-Roos" which basically avoids this whole problem. >>> Mello-Roos requires developers to sell bonds to fund new >>> infrastructure; the eventual buyers of the new homes pay off the bonds >>> through a special assessment on their property taxes over the next 20 >>> years. >> >> That's nice for Calif, but a problem exactly as you describe >> elsewhere. > > Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your > elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do > it, you can, too. Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the Internet. Where I live, one of the conditions for getting a zoning change is that the developers must agree to put in the roads, utilities, schools, etc. necessary to serve their development. The cost is then built directly into the price of the houses, not borne by existing residents. It'd be nice if that were actually state law, but it works just fine as a city ordinance in the places that have adopted it. Those who haven't will suffer the logical result of their (in)action. (It's also rather easy to get such laws passed, since (a) the people who pay the costs, the new residents, don't actually live there yet and therefore can't vote against the politicians until it's too late, (b) the existing residents, who _do_ vote, will love it, and (c) it raises property values, which means more tax revenue for the politicians to spend.) S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: Brent on 5 Nov 2009 00:12 On 2009-11-05, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: >> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your >> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do >> it, you can, too. > > Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are > responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the > Internet. I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty pointless. Especially when said representives vote entirely different than nearly everyone who wrote and called them to express their views.
From: Orval Fairbairn on 5 Nov 2009 09:11 In article <61p5f5pvqc5kjup6srt76gossfmt9h81m9(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >> > >>>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just > >>>>>taxes aimed at transportation. > >>> > >>>> And you think roads are not? > >>> > >>>I've been over this already. > >> > >> So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows > >> that the same is true for roads. > > > >It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes > >I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather > >distant from me > > "Proximity to Brent" is irrelevant. The fact remains, roads are > supported by all forms of taxation, just like transit is. In some > cases (Orange County Measure M) the same tax supports both. > > QED. .... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them; they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody else's schedule. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: Brent on 5 Nov 2009 11:32
On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> >>>>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just >>>>>>taxes aimed at transportation. >>>> >>>>> And you think roads are not? >>>> >>>>I've been over this already. >>> >>> So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows >>> that the same is true for roads. >> >>It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes >>I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather >>distant from me > > "Proximity to Brent" is irrelevant. The fact remains, roads are > supported by all forms of taxation, just like transit is. In some > cases (Orange County Measure M) the same tax supports both. I don't know about the state you live in, but all forms do not go to roads here in IL where the road funds are raided for other purposes year after year. Chicago gets it's yearly state support for the CTA though. People down in carbondale pay for transit in chicago even if they've never been on a bus or a train in their lives. |