Far Left Liberal San Fran Considers Taxing People Entering The City

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
"Officials in San Francisco are considering a plan to ease traffic by charging drivers a fee upon entering notoriously clogged sections of the city.

Using $1 million in federal funds, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is studying various “congestion pricing” options. If approved, such pricing would make San Francisco the first American city to charge cars a fee to enter certain neighborhoods at certain times. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04congestion.html

And we all know how Liberal Democrats work, once one does it, then the rest try and keep up with the Liberal Joneses and think they are "behind" by not having the same "progressive" legislation.
 
Yeah, cause every city in America is so popular that they're congested terribly and need to tax people to ease traffic like SF does. The Liberal Joneses are coming!
 
KingCondanomation said:
"Officials in San Francisco are considering a plan to ease traffic by charging drivers a fee upon entering notoriously clogged sections of the city.

Using $1 million in federal funds, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is studying various “congestion pricing” options. If approved, such pricing would make San Francisco the first American city to charge cars a fee to enter certain neighborhoods at certain times. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04congestion.html

And we all know how Liberal Democrats work, once one does it, then the rest try and keep up with the Liberal Joneses and think they are "behind" by not having the same "progressive" legislation.
Click to expand...


Think of London, a small city

It's dark, dark in the daytime
The people sleep, sleep in the daytime
If they want to, if they want to
 
Cities are faced with some difficult choices these days.

They are required to spend huge amounts of money maintaining roads, traffic controls, emergency reponse units and much more.

This is simply a way to tax those who use the most congested sections.

I am sure there are places you can park and make use of public transportation.



It seems a bit extreme, but not the worst I have heard. It beats the hell out of selling off city and state assets.
 
Of course they could *gasp* cut expenditures. That's what were doing here in the Great State of North Carolina.
 
Southern Man said:
Of course they could *gasp* cut expenditures. That's what were doing here in the Great State of North Carolina.
Click to expand...


Well, if the purpose were solely to make the balance sheet look better that would make sense, but the purpose of congestion pricing is to ease congestion not necessarily to raise revenues.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, if the purpose were solely to make the balance sheet look better that would make sense, but the purpose of congestion pricing is to ease congestion not necessarily to raise revenues.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the goal is to make it less sexy to be driving your car. Of course all it seems to do is relegate the poor into "loser terrariums"... or "buses" as you might want to call them. Wasting their day standing at the side of the road waiting for a scheduled appearance...
 
Dungheap said:
Well, if the purpose were solely to make the balance sheet look better that would make sense, but the purpose of congestion pricing is to ease congestion not necessarily to raise revenues.
Click to expand...
I don't suspect that people are using a route through downtown San-Fran during rush hour as a short cut. Obviously the people who are traveling in the congested areas are commuting, delivering goods, or are tourists; all associated with the area and therefore all part of the area commerce. If you punish someone for engaging in commerce then they will do less of it, therefore overall tax revenues will decrease.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, the goal is to make it less sexy to be driving your car. Of course all it seems to do is relegate the poor into "loser terrariums"... or "buses" as you might want to call them. Wasting their day standing at the side of the road waiting for a scheduled appearance...
Click to expand...


Sexiness has nothing to do with it. Congested urban roads are, from a market standpoint, extremely inefficient on myriad levels and environmentally problematic, largely because the rational decision of the individual to drive becomes an irrational, inefficient mess when everyone does it.

Use the revenues from congestion pricing and build a better public transit system (BART is pretty good as it is).
 
Southern Man said:
I don't suspect that people are using a route through downtown San-Fran during rush hour as a short cut. Obviously the people who are traveling in the congested areas are commuting, delivering goods, or are tourists; all associated with the area and therefore all part of the area commerce. If you punish someone for engaging in commerce then they will do less of it, therefore overall tax revenues will decrease.
Click to expand...


Driving is not engaging in commerce. It is driving. It is a means to get from A to B.
 
Dungheap said:
Sexiness has nothing to do with it. Congested urban roads are, from a market standpoint, extremely inefficient on myriad levels and environmentally problematic, largely because the rational decision of the individual to drive becomes an irrational, inefficient mess when everyone does it.

Use the revenues from congestion pricing and build a better public transit system (BART is pretty good as it is).
Click to expand...
You simply described exactly what I just said in different words and added, "Build a better system, it's pretty good anyway" to the end of it.

Idiomatic phrases notwithstanding, the "benefit" again is taking the poor off the streets to make the roads more efficient for the rich who are more capable of paying such punitive taxation. It will also serve to limit tourism...

It's a regressive taxation that serves to benefit the money rich by making them time rich as well.
 
Southern Man said:
So, your theory is, that these people are just driving through the area and not stopping to do business in it. Is that your position?
Click to expand...


No. All I am saying is that the means of getting to a place is not engaging in commerce in that place. Driving, like walking, taking the bus, taking the subway, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding Segwaying, etc. . . are merely means to get from point A to point B. They aren't commerce.
 
Dungheap said:
No. All I am saying is that the means of getting to a place is not engaging in commerce in that place. Driving, like walking, taking the bus, taking the subway, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding Segwaying, etc. . . are merely means to get from point A to point B. They aren't commerce.
Click to expand...
If you tax the means of people getting to the store, the likely result is less commerce. If there is less commerce and some of your money comes from that source of taxes the likely result is less revenue.
 
Damocles said:
If you tax the means of people getting to the store, the likely result is less commerce. If there is less commerce and some of your money comes from that source of taxes the likely result is less revenue.
Click to expand...


Of course, we could look tot he London example and see what actually happened when congestion pricing was implemented as compared to the predictions like the one above.
 
Dungheap said:
No. All I am saying is that the means of getting to a place is not engaging in commerce in that place. Driving, like walking, taking the bus, taking the subway, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding Segwaying, etc. . . are merely means to get from point A to point B. They aren't commerce.
Click to expand...
You seem to be ignoring the fact that when people arrive at B, regardless of method, they do business there. That's called "commerce".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top