Re: Tolling Urban Freeways
Posted: July 25th, 2014, 10:08 am
I would certainly consider funding of K-12 education to be progressive.
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
May or may not pay out the full cost. For a lot of suburban growth the Met Council built out waste water access in a planned expansion outwards placing access there, funded by existing users, long before homes were built there. After however many years and decades it may have paid off the full cost of adding that area.I pay $106 a month for waste water management in my suburban home. Doesn’t that cover the full cost? Also I have a well, and so do all my neighbors, so we pay the full cost of our own potable water.
Ding! And how many companies will start to build in the suburbs (oops already doing that) because that's where people are.There's a lot of reasons besides loving cars that people choose to live in the suburbs. Even all the freeways were toll roads I'd still live out here, so it's not a 'market distortion" that makes people want to live here and not the city. Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.
baloney, you cannot take the massive amount of people that are out there now living under the conditions known to them at the time, bought a house with a mortgage and then subject them to this new condition. In the fantasy of all fantasies on this thread you'd have everyone moving back to the city causing massive issues with housing and foreclosures in the suburbs, creating a massive housing problem in the city and likely creating a crime hotbed in the former suburban housing. The whole idea is absolutely terrible and lacks the same foresight that got us into the mess of urban sprawl to begin with. There's no good way to put the genie back in the bottle at this point but you cannot just change the game on people. Strike that. You won't be able to do that. It would never fly anyway. Trying to tie increasing taxes or charging folks that live in the suburbs to re-social engineer society is going to do one thing become a money making stream for the government entity that enacts it. They would charge folks just enough to make sure they stay there and make as much money as possible. And they for sure aren't going to put it to transit uses which would take people out of the system that they would be paying into.Saying people should have to pay the full costs of their decisions is not punishing them. Subsidizing their decisions so they don't have to pay their true cost punishes people who don't make that decision yet still end up footing the bill.
I sense some lawsuits if that happens... http://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/lawsuit ... nstitutionThe metro will continue to grow in population. Limit growth outward and let the metro naturally grow from within. It already seems to be happening.
That's why we need to stop subsidizing exurban growth, rather than trying to just limit it. It's a lot more effective to say "We won't extend water or sewer to your subdivision or strip mall because we will lose massive piles of public money" than it is to say "you're outside the urban growth boundary."I sense some lawsuits if that happens... http://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/lawsuit ... nstitutionThe metro will continue to grow in population. Limit growth outward and let the metro naturally grow from within. It already seems to be happening.
Given the majority of residents of this state are either rural or suburban, how do you propose to get their representatives to vote for it?That's why we need to stop subsidizing exurban growth, rather than trying to just limit it. It's a lot more effective to say "We won't extend water or sewer to your subdivision or strip mall because we will lose massive piles of public money" than it is to say "you're outside the urban growth boundary."I sense some lawsuits if that happens... http://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/lawsuit ... nstitutionThe metro will continue to grow in population. Limit growth outward and let the metro naturally grow from within. It already seems to be happening.
I'm afraid that won't work. See Detroit. The people with the political power will never pay the price. If urban areas want to lift themselves up, they have to organize and build power.Once we got bankrupt, we won't have other options.
Many suburbs are not exurbs.Given the majority of residents of this state are either rural or suburban, how do you propose to get their representatives to vote for it?That's why we need to stop subsidizing exurban growth, rather than trying to just limit it. It's a lot more effective to say "We won't extend water or sewer to your subdivision or strip mall because we will lose massive piles of public money" than it is to say "you're outside the urban growth boundary."
But they have similar concerns to the exurbs. They still want highways, they still want roads.Many suburbs are not exurbs.Given the majority of residents of this state are either rural or suburban, how do you propose to get their representatives to vote for it?That's why we need to stop subsidizing exurban growth, rather than trying to just limit it. It's a lot more effective to say "We won't extend water or sewer to your subdivision or strip mall because we will lose massive piles of public money" than it is to say "you're outside the urban growth boundary."