Urban vs Suburban Debate

General discussion on all things Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

User avatar
Uffda
County Board
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Land o Lakes, FL

Post by Uffda »

You can't give a kid an F in school
I don't give Fs --- they earn them and one student earned it last quarter.

[/quote]
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Uffda wrote: I don't give Fs --- they earn them and one student earned it last quarter.


Lol. Wish I would have thought of that when I was younger. My Mom: "What? You got a god dam* F in Algebra?" Me: "No, Mom. I earned a god dam* F in Algebra!"
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Ben, did you even read what I was saying? I explicitly said that living in the country isn't inherently more efficient or environmentally friendly; it's the effort to live a self-sufficient, self-sustaining lifestyle that is conducive to living in the country--i.e. having the space to grow your own food, and living outside of potential neighborhood covenants and neighbors who might oppose things like compost heaps and clothes-line drying, etc.

Again, there's this tendency to try to paint me as an extremist or a hypocrite, and it's just not the case.

Sure, it may be no better than living in biking distance to things in the suburbs, but the question is, do you actually bike there? Is it safe? Etc.

And, I am thinking of a totally "off the grid" lifestyle, which is not the way in which most country-dwellers live. I completely realize that. Plus, as I said, it's pretty much just a fantasy of mine.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
joeglow wrote:As much as you will hate this, I would like to own a second property (a downtown condo) when the kids are gone, in addition to a property out in the country.
Why would I hate that? That's ultimately my goal, too: a place in the city and a place in the country.

Joe and mrdwhsr, I'm not arguing against your choices. If you have lived in the city and in the suburbs and ultimately decided on the suburbs to raise kids, that's fine--but not everybody would choose to do so. Furthermore, to the extent that your choice makes the foregone choice less possible for those who would choose it, its price tag should be reflective of that.

mrdwhsr, good points about the history of cities. That's exactly what I studied, in high detail, during my first semester of grad school. But you have to ask, why were people leaving cities during that time? Urban areas today are vastly different than the industrial cities of the 19th Century: The streets aren't full of horse |expletive| and disease, there generally aren't factories spewing toxic chemicals in downtowns anymore, etc. etc. Not even bringing class and race into the equation, these are the "urban problems" from which people were fleeing.

There's not some inherent flaw to city living--if there were, other urban centers would not have continued to concentrate and centralize during the same periods of American city-desertion given the same technologies.

Ben, I'm looking forward to reading your comment, but it'll need to wait until I can dedicate just time to reading and analyzing it.
mrdwhsr, any comments or thoughts to share?
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
OmahaBen wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?
...
This is why we hear rhetoric attacking policies to levy appropriate user fees on people who choose to live a certain way--calling them an attack on the American way of life, because obviously, their way of life is the American way.
The former is a resounding yes, so long as they can legally acquire it and it doesn't impose a substantial harm on others (you have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to shoot your neighbor).
Exactly. You've restated my point. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, with those conditions.

I'm not going to argue economics with you, and I think there is a fare amount that we agree upon.

Where am I taking this too far? See my last post and others. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't have the right to a suburban house with a yard. heck, I would be more happy in a house with a yard than living in Manhattan.

And in terms of suburbs being market-driven, I wholly disagree--with history and facts on my side. The suburbs WOULD NOT have happened, at least not as we have come to know them, without the policies put in place by the US government in the first half and middle of the 20th Century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty
Ben, any comments or thoughts to share?
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

OmahaBen wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Country living not efficient? Yeah, if you're commuting into a city everyday. What about growing your own food and doing your best to "live off the grid". What about living in walking or bicycling distance to a town with access to local food, goods, and services? Sure, you'd probably have to own a car, but that doesn't mean you have to use it every day, or even every week.
Streets, really? So country living = sustainable. urban living = sustainable. mix the two (suburban) and all of a sudden it's not?
And anyway, yes. Really.

Thousands of years of human history have taught us that human settlement has been divided into two distinct types--rural and urban. Since the advent of the automobile (and the cheep energy and policies that enabled its takeover of our lives), human settlement patterns have drastically changed, and a new gray middle ground, the suburbs, emerged--neither urban nor rural. This way of living has proved profusely inefficient, and, unsurprisingly, is beginning to be recognized for the myriad negative externalities it has brought with it.

Suburban living isn't just the result of "mixing the two" (rural and urban); It's a radically different form of human settlement without precedent in human history before the 20th Century.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
joeglow wrote:As much as you will hate this, I would like to own a second property (a downtown condo) when the kids are gone, in addition to a property out in the country.
Why would I hate that? That's ultimately my goal, too: a place in the city and a place in the country.

Joe and mrdwhsr, I'm not arguing against your choices. If you have lived in the city and in the suburbs and ultimately decided on the suburbs to raise kids, that's fine--but not everybody would choose to do so. Furthermore, to the extent that your choice makes the foregone choice less possible for those who would choose it, its price tag should be reflective of that.

mrdwhsr, good points about the history of cities. That's exactly what I studied, in high detail, during my first semester of grad school. But you have to ask, why were people leaving cities during that time? Urban areas today are vastly different than the industrial cities of the 19th Century: The streets aren't full of horse |expletive| and disease, there generally aren't factories spewing toxic chemicals in downtowns anymore, etc. etc. Not even bringing class and race into the equation, these are the "urban problems" from which people were fleeing.

There's not some inherent flaw to city living--if there were, other urban centers would not have continued to concentrate and centralize during the same periods of American city-desertion given the same technologies.

Ben, I'm looking forward to reading your comment, but it'll need to wait until I can dedicate just time to reading and analyzing it.
mrdwhsr, any comments or thoughts to share?
Have you had experience with country living? I'd be interested in a web-cam on the trials and tribulations.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Again, there's this tendency to try to paint me as an extremist or a hypocrite, and it's just not the case.
I don't think anyone tries to paint you in that way, I think you do a pretty good job of doing that yourself. When you ask a somewhat loaded question like "should they be able to [have a suburban lifestyle]?', you shouldn't then be surprised when people infer your own answer might be "no," especially given your past statements on such matters. It's a "whole body of work" kind of thing.
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:And in terms of suburbs being market-driven, I wholly disagree--with history and facts on my side. The suburbs WOULD NOT have happened, at least not as we have come to know them, without the policies put in place by the US government in the first half and middle of the 20th Century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty
I disagree. The policies reflected changes in culture. The car was already well established as a means of transportation well before any of those happened. In so much as those policies furthered an already present movement, it probably sped things up and aided in the excesses. But I have a really strong inclination that even in the absence of federal money, we'd still have limited access highways of one sort or another to aid the movement of people and goods, and such highways would still lead to suburbia in a fashion that would be recognizable to us. That proverbial cat was out of the bag already. I don't see people saying "well, we have this great invention in the automobile which lets me get from point a to point b and back again faster than anything else out there and with minimal exertion on my part, but I'm not going to use it."

The only way that wasn't going to happen is if the government actively discouraged it. Which then goes back to this coming down to policy choices. And while it might not have been preordained to have happened the way it did, I think there was a strong likelihood of something similar occurring regardless. Maybe instead of I-80, highway 6 remains a major cross-country route.

People congregate around transportation hubs; before the industrial revolution that meant waterways. Then it was railroad lines. Then state highways. and so forth. Given the means, people like having their own homestead. The car opened up brand new areas for development. Given that, I think suburbs were going to be made even in the absence of government involvement.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Historically, the Federal Government paid for 90% of highway construction for the states. You think suburbia would have happened anyway without government involvement? Absolutely not. Would we have sacrificed education funding? Clean water? Garbage pickup? Sewers? Libraries?

That's exactly why we're in the state we're in--the government paid to "give" us this infrastructure, and no state has been able to keep up with maintenance. Now we're taking money from all those areas just mentioned just to repair and maintain highways.

You're absolutely right, we would have seen routes like Highway 6 and the Lincoln Highway remaining the major means of cross-state and cross-country automobile travel. But as automobiles became more affordable, those routes would have become so congested that it would no longer be worth it to travel by car; We might have even seen the privatization of certain highways to keep them a playground for the rich. Hence, people and freight's main means of travel would have remained railroads (and air as it came along), and our passenger rail system would probably be more advanced than France and Japan's instead of more resembling that of a third world country. Cities' walkability and public transit options would have remained in tact and grown more and more accommodating (again, instead of resembling a third world country) and would have never been stigmatized as something poor people do because they have to. We'd likely be a healthier population since we wouldn't have become so utterly reliant on our cars, and there would still likely be the same logical, natural frontier between the urban landscape and the rural landscape.

You're also absolutely right that there were cultural powers at work that contributed to the advent and embracing of the policies--but at the end of the day government policy isn't just there to blindly bend to the wants and whims of its people; In fact, in many ways, it is there to resist such wants when public harm would result.

To be fair, it was an era of institutionalized racism, exclusionary housing policies, and public health epidemics in smoking and drinking.

There were policies in place that enabled those behaviors as well. But one of government's roles in a market economy is to help provide perfect information. As medical evidence of the dangers of smoking and over-drinking became available, policy responded with interventions that discourage those two things. Same as with discriminatory housing, education, and other policies.

We're not as naive as we used to be as a culture, and policies are already beginning to correct the wrong turns that have gotten us where we are.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: But one of government's roles in a market economy is to help provide perfect information.
I don't mean to digress and cherry-pick, or maybe I do, but what government are you referring to?

From the days where government issued PSA's comforted us with the protection of a school desk from an atom bomb, to the abortive prelude to the Iraq war, to now, where the feds are organizing to tax the living sh*t out of stop smoking devices to shore up the lost revenues from tobacco sales, just what "perfect information" are you speaking of?

Trust me, the government hasn't evolved in any sort of way; very generous on your part, though.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with...

What government? Any government that's attempting to function in a so-called "market economy". Neo-classical economists will tell you that markets need perfect information to function efficiently, but that markets don't create this information (along with all the other market failures).
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

You seemed to suggest the government has decided to evolve and play an honest role in providing "perfect information". The US government has never and will never play an honest role in achieving "perfect information" as it's commonly defined.

Case in point: A general consumers knowledge of a product or industry here in the US has traditionally been derived from free market experience (buying, selling, using, making, you name it). All other "information" that has been provided by our government has usually been nothing more than self-serving partisan ideology. (i.e. salt is the devil, McDonald's toys will kill your babies, smoking is bad as long as the public says it's ok to say it's bad) In other words, the absence of perfect information allows for marketing competition, rather than having some government official test all of the products and label them good-better-best.

I think a better term to use here would be "complete" information rather than "perfect", which seems to refer much more to a socialist environment. In order for a free market to function properly, you would not want to provide perfect information, as it would eliminate competition in that each entity would know exactly what the other entity was doing and only the single best product or service would survive. Sounds a premise to government run industry, right?

Anyway, I'm beginning to think either you worded your statement wrong, or I am interpreting what you said differently from how you meant it. (this isn't me arguing, I'm just not sure why you chose the term "perfect information" in this instance)

I'm guessing your main point was that the government should have played a much more authoritative role in the development of our transportation infrastructure rather than market demand.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Historically, the Federal Government paid for 90% of highway construction for the states. You think suburbia would have happened anyway without government involvement? Absolutely not. Would we have sacrificed education funding? Clean water? Garbage pickup? Sewers? Libraries?
In the absence of federal money, I'm guessing the state gasoline taxes would have been higher to compensate.

Additionally, the only reason we're borrowing from other areas of government to pay maintenance is because the gas tax isn't indexed for inflation or even set as a percentage of gross receipts, but instead remains a static number. That's a revenue collection problem, not a problem inherent to highway funding in and of itself. The fix isn't to eliminate road spending, but to raise the gas tax and index it for inflation for future needs.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

S33, I "chose" the term "perfect information" because that is the appropriate economic language. I didn't just make it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_in ... guation%29

Ben, I totally agree with you! But this is where we run into the situation where, if faced with a price that more accurately reflects the true costs of automobile travel, we would see a sharp decline in the demand for said mode! Not to mention, had this been the case from the get-go, we would not have seen the overbuilt mono-infrastructure that we have today and cars would have remained a toy of the rich (again, we probably would have seen the privatization of highways, just like railroads and airlines).

But you are helping me make the point that it is policy, and the strength or weakness of that policy, that affects the physical space around us and how we travel about it; It's not just the happenstance of the market.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:S33, I "chose" the term "perfect information" because that is the appropriate economic language. I didn't just make it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_in ... guation%29
I'm well aware that you didn't make it up, and that is why I suggested that maybe the term (which I also did not make up) "complete information", would have been more "appropriate economic language" in this instance.

Way to be a complete and total dickmouth as usual, though.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Yeah, whatever.  :roll:

The way you framed your comment sounded like you were insinuating that I made up the term. That's what I was responding to.

Anyway, just like you to call me a dickmouth and then duck out of the room. And is calling people "dickmouths" supposed to be helping or hurting your claim to not be homophobic?
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Yeah, whatever.  :roll:

The way you framed your comment sounded like you were insinuating that I made up the term. That's what I was responding to.
No, I fully understood where you were going with that.
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Anyway, just like you to call me a dickmouth and then duck out of the room. And is calling people "dickmouths" supposed to be helping or hurting your claim to not be homophobic?
You're right. I am homophobic. My phobias include spiders, mean people with guns, heights, plane wrecks, and guys who like other guys. Got me.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

I love how you choose to use a term, one which you obviously just learned in class because you were clearly oblivious to the other terms similar in meaning and commonly used in the same course of conversation with the term you mentioned, and deflect your obvious failure to me being a homophobe.

Really, who takes curse words at anything more than face value? If I call you a dickhead, I really don't think you're wearing a dick for a head...
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Very good. We'll stop there for today.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Good game, sport.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Image
riceweb
Library Board
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:54 am
Location: Omaha, NE

Post by riceweb »

So, about that urban vs. suburban topic.....
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:S33, I "chose" the term "perfect information" because that is the appropriate economic language. I didn't just make it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_in ... guation%29

Ben, I totally agree with you! But this is where we run into the situation where, if faced with a price that more accurately reflects the true costs of automobile travel, we would see a sharp decline in the demand for said mode! Not to mention, had this been the case from the get-go, we would not have seen the overbuilt mono-infrastructure that we have today and cars would have remained a toy of the rich (again, we probably would have seen the privatization of highways, just like railroads and airlines).

But you are helping me make the point that it is policy, and the strength or weakness of that policy, that affects the physical space around us and how we travel about it; It's not just the happenstance of the market.
Cars haven't been solely the toys of the rich since Henry Ford perfected the assembly line to produce the Model T. The Model T predates the interstate highway system by a good 50 years.

Additionally, the federal gas tax is currently 18.4 cents/gallon, which was set in 1993. Say we double that to 36.8 cents per gallon, even though inflation hasn't been nearly that high over the last 20 years (assume a 2%/year average, and we're talking about 45% or so, give or take).

So the price of gas jumps 20 cents/gallon overnight. Doubt it'd have that much of an impact on driving considering it fluctuates by that much on its own in a given month. It then proceeds to rise 2%/year on average. Still not a huge deal.

Given that, I also don't see why the roads would inherently be privatized and suburbia wouldn't have ever existed. Especially since gov't supported roads date back to the Via Appia of the Roman Empire (and probably before that - it just springs immediately to mind). heck, even airports aren't privatized - generally speaking they're government facilities. If you can afford your own plane, you generally can use any of a number of airports in your travels.

I'm all for greater funding for things like Amtrak. But I don't see how the government ever prevents its citizens from voluntarily choosing the individual motorized transport - aka, the car - over something communal (a train or bus) or something slower (a bike or horse) without actively and permanently discouraging it. Car travel may be under-priced currently, but I think you're greatly discounting the utility most people get from being able to go when and where they want reasonably quickly and with reasonable amount of cargo room.

I'm not saying the government doesn't incentivize or discourage certain behaviors, but history is full of the market doing things the government doesn't want.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I'm not going to argue transportation history with you.

I have serious doubts of whether the doubling of the gas tax from your scenario would make much of a dent in the repairs and maintenance needed. Nor should a raised gas tax be our solution at this point with new energies on the horizon, but that's another matter.

Also, kudos to you if you don't think a doubled gas tax is that big of a deal; A lot of people out there are already hurting and transportation costs are already the biggest portion of household expenses in the US.

Also, the airport example isn't the best, because all the airlines are private companies.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:A lot of people out there are already hurting and transportation costs are already the biggest portion of household expenses in the US.
Also one of the easiest to reduce.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:and transportation costs are already the biggest portion of household expenses in the US.
Most transportation costs are not fuel, though, at least when talking car. And of the fuel costs, most of that is not gas taxes. I spend ~$300/month on a car payment, and even when I was commuting from Ames to Des Moines 5 days a week I was only spending $100-$120/month on gas at the high end. And that doesn't count maintenance or parking, either.

$.18/gal more in gas tax would have cost me about $8 more a month in my high driving days. These days it'd be close to $3-$4. Oh noes.
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Also, kudos to you if you don't think a doubled gas tax is that big of a deal; A lot of people out there are already hurting and transportation costs are already the biggest portion of household expenses in the US.

Also, the airport example isn't the best, because all the airlines are private companies.
Actually Streets, the airport is a very good example. All the private airlines pay fees for use of the airport facilities. Much like private trucking companies pay road-use taxes and fees. The question being, do the user fees cover the cost of building and maintaining the facilities? (And I would say do they replace the property taxes lost when private property is taken for a new airport or a wider interstate highway?)

I'm surprised that you think doubling the gas tax is a big deal. How do you propose we get people to switch from their private vehicles to public transit if we don't move toward the point where the costs of the automobile aren't subsidized? I've been under the impression from several previous posts that people are using private motor vehicles because they are heavily subsidized and public transit isn't.

Wouldn't raising the cost of motor vehicle ownership and operation cover the costs inflicted by private motor vehicles (the big subsidy to the suburban lifestyle - as I've understood you to state several times) possibly accomplish the goal of moving people from cars and suburbs to public transit and inner cities? Isn't it at the auto-dealer, insurance agent, motor-vehicle license office and gas-pumps that the suburban auto-culture should see the true costs of all these suburbs with their destruction of the environment and costly infrastructure?   :(
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Whoa, whoa. I think you're really missing what I'm getting at here, because you're right; all that stuff you just said is pretty much true.

I was mainly commenting on Ben's nonchalance at the idea of a doubled gas tax, and I was also showing my general skepticism that such a doubling of the gas tax would make much of a dent in the "needed" improvements. The other point was simply that gas is a dying fuel-source in today's economy and sociopolitical milieu--therefore why invest a ton of time and effort into crafting new taxation policies pertaining to it.

That said, while we still are completely and hopelessly reliant upon gasoline at the moment, I say tax the |expletive| out of it at the pump!
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:That said, while we still are completely and hopelessly reliant upon gasoline at the moment, I say tax the |expletive| out of it at the pump!
Smart move. That way millions of Americans, many in cities without much public transportation like Omaha, will be priced out of their mobility for as many years as it takes to build an alternative.

Great plan again - we have a genius here, folks. Nothing like "taxing the |expletive|" out of something you are "completely and hopelessly reliant upon".
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Whoa, whoa. I think you're really missing what I'm getting at here, because you're right; all that stuff you just said is pretty much true.

I was mainly commenting on Ben's nonchalance at the idea of a doubled gas tax, and I was also showing my general skepticism that such a doubling of the gas tax would make much of a dent in the "needed" improvements.
An extra $30 billion a year wouldn't make a dent? Really? That'd up the federal gas tax collections to ~$60 billion total, or about 1.2 billion per state, on average.

I think that'd make a pretty sizeable dent into the highway fund shortfall.
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Whoa, whoa. I think you're really missing what I'm getting at here, because you're right; all that stuff you just said is pretty much true.

I was mainly commenting on Ben's nonchalance at the idea of a doubled gas tax, and I was also showing my general skepticism that such a doubling of the gas tax would make much of a dent in the "needed" improvements. The other point was simply that gas is a dying fuel-source in today's economy and sociopolitical milieu--therefore why invest a ton of time and effort into crafting new taxation policies pertaining to it.

That said, while we still are completely and hopelessly reliant upon gasoline at the moment, I say tax the |expletive| out of it at the pump!
I did get the second point, but you are correct I really did miss the first point. I thought maybe you were concerned about the impact of a doubled gas tax on family budgets.
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:A lot of people out there are already hurting and transportation costs are already the biggest portion of household expenses in the US.
A doubled gas tax just expresses nonchalance --
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I say tax the |expletive| out of it at the pump!
Make it real - a $5.00 per gallon gas tax - now we're getting serious!
:;):
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Again, I have no clue why anyone hear is advocating making our only real mode of transportation unaffordable for those with the least to spare. Sure, structure roadway tolls to encourage people to live/work/shop closer to home, change policy to encourage smarter development, but taxing people out of their cars?

How stupid are we? You change a person's transportation habits by offering affordable and convenient alternatives, not by limiting the purchasing power of their money.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

S33 wrote:Again, I have no clue why anyone hear is advocating making our only real mode of transportation unaffordable for those with the least to spare. Sure, structure roadway tolls to encourage people to live/work/shop closer to home, change policy to encourage smarter development, but taxing people out of their cars?

How stupid are we? You change a person's transportation habits by offering affordable and convenient alternatives, not by limiting the purchasing power of their money.
Raising the federal gas tax to pay for roads is not taxing people out of their cars. Besides, what good is a car without a road on which to drive it?

The current federal gas tax is ~18 cents per gallon. It was last set in 1993, and is not indexed for inflation. At the least, it should be around 27-30 cents / gallon simply to fund highways the same as we did in 1993. An extra dime/gallon is hardly noticeable compared to the price jump due to Mideast instability.

I am not advocating European-esque tax rates. I'm simply advocating for a sensible solution to our highway funding problem.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Perhaps you are advocating something a little less extreme than the $5.00 per gallon suggestion above but, the fact is, the lower and lower middle class doesn't have the ability to incur any additional taxes, fees, or charges - for anything. Every tax on fuel is a tax on bread, milk, shoes and laundry soap.  That extra ten cents isn't truly just ten cents.

They are strapped as it is and having to take jobs further and further away from home to make steady incomes. Making their mobility more expensive will not accomplish anything but put these people into worse shape than they already are.

You want to reduce the burden of roadway funding, you create sensible ways to reduce the demand on the roads by adding alternative modes of transit; you do not tax "the |expletive|" out of your people. Throughout all this turmoil with government spending and waste, I find it absurd that we are again looking to ourselves as the primary source for funding shortfalls.

Believe me, make a few less bombs, encourage people to work rather than pay them to sit at home, eliminate the monetary burden from illegal aliens, reduce corporate tax rates and encourage them operate their workforce and headquarters domestically, and perhaps, adopt the same oil drilling policies at home as we have abroad and produce more of our own fuel, that 30 billion dollars will be chump change. And yes, if the government feels the need to borrow 60 cents of every dollar they spend, all of that has to do with roadway funding

Additionally, we're not talking about an extra 10 cents a gallon for Clark and Ellen Griswold traveling cross country to Wally World, I am talking about making sure the broke single mother of two, who can barely afford to license her car, gets back and fourth to work in a city without public transportation.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

S33 wrote:You want to reduce the burden of roadway funding, you create sensible ways to reduce the demand on the roads by adding alternative modes of transit; you do not tax "the |expletive|" out of your people. Throughout all this turmoil with government spending and waste, I find it absurd that we are again looking to ourselves as the primary source for funding shortfalls.
And how is one supposed to add alternative modes of transport when we refuse to pay for what we currently have?

We can't raise the gas tax, ostensibly because it hurts the dirt poor.
We can't raise the income tax, because then rich people will...do something. (move to Rwanda, that libertarian tax haven that it is?)
We can't touch capital gains taxes because it would discourage investment.
We not only can't raise corporate taxes, but have to lower them to pad Chevron's bottom line even more.
We can't raise estate taxes because of family farms and Paris Hilton.
God forbid we eliminate the cap on FICA collections.

So, pray tell, what can we do to A) fund these alternative modes of transportation and B) fund our highways, preferably at the same time.

I'm not saying the gas tax is ideal, but it seems like the least unacceptable alternative. I'd prefer simply raising income taxes myself, but somehow I'm guessing you'd have an even bigger issue with that.

As to the rest, I'm not turning this into the budget debate thread. The overseas wars have nothing to do with suburban transportation options.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

OmahaBen wrote: And how is one supposed to add alternative modes of transport when we refuse to pay for what we currently have?
Discretionary Spending.
OmahaBen wrote: We can't raise the gas tax, ostensibly because it hurts the dirt poor.
It would, and every other family who earns just enough to make ends meet.
OmahaBen wrote: We can't raise the income tax, because then rich people will...do something. (move to Rwanda, that libertarian tax haven that it is?)
We should "tax the |expletive|" out of  large offshore money transfers, corporate investments and acquisitions.
OmahaBen wrote:We can't touch capital gains taxes because it would discourage investment.
Correct.
OmahaBen wrote: We not only can't raise corporate taxes, but have to lower them to pad Chevron's bottom line even more.
We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world at over 39 percent. I can't imagine how that would be an economic growth hurdle or force the US to pay out tens of billions of dollars a year for people to sit at home and do nothing.

I cannot imagine how the lack of jobs coupled with our governments lax handout programs would encourage a generation with leach-type mentalities.
OmahaBen wrote: We can't raise estate taxes because of family farms and Paris Hilton.
There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't raise real estate taxes, and those aren't them.
OmahaBen wrote: So, pray tell, what can we do to A) fund these alternative modes of transportation and B) fund our highways, preferably at the same time.
Maybe all those expensive suits occupying the seats in the House and Senate could exercise some discretionary spending instead of allowing the waste to occupy any source of additional funding we may have had for important items such as transportation.
OmahaBen wrote: I'm not saying the gas tax is ideal, but it seems like the least unacceptable alternative. I'd prefer simply raising income taxes myself, but somehow I'm guessing you'd have an even bigger issue with that.
Yeah, I would have a big problem with that.
OmahaBen wrote: The overseas wars have nothing to do with suburban transportation options.
Again, when 60 cents on the dollar is debt spending in this country, it has EVERYTHING to do with overseas wars.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

After reading through this again, it's funny to me that NEVER is the solution to a healthier budget and additional transit options to rest on the shoulders of smarter government spending. it is only about increasing the government's budget via taxation, corporate or otherwise.

God forbid we, as a mass, encourage the government to stop spending money like an addict on a coke-fueled binge. Silly me for even suggesting it.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

S33 wrote:
OmahaBen wrote: And how is one supposed to add alternative modes of transport when we refuse to pay for what we currently have?
Discretionary Spending.
...
Maybe all those expensive suits occupying the seats in the House and Senate could exercise some discretionary spending instead of allowing the waste to occupy any source of additional funding we may have had for important items such as transportation.
That's not a revenue source, that's a spending account. Saying I should pay for food out of my grocery budget tells me nothing about how I earn the money to have a grocery budget to begin with.

The question asked is how to pay for such discretionary spending.
OmahaBen wrote:We can't touch capital gains taxes because it would discourage investment.
Correct.
OmahaBen wrote: We not only can't raise corporate taxes, but have to lower them to pad Chevron's bottom line even more.
We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world at over 39 percent. I can't imagine how that would be an economic growth hurdle or force the US to pay out tens of billions of dollars a year for people to sit at home and do nothing.
Damnit, I said I wouldn't turn this into the budget thread, but I can't help myself.

We have the second-highest statutory corporate tax rate. No one actually pays that, though. The average effective tax rate for most corporations is about 25%, which puts us squarely in the middle.

Also, I'm willing to make a trade. Drop the corporate tax rate to 0%, but tax capital gains and dividends as normal income at the individual level. No more "double taxation," and it solves the problem of those whose income is based more on assets paying less in taxes than those whose income is based on labor.
OmahaBen wrote: We can't raise estate taxes because of family farms and Paris Hilton.
There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't raise real estate taxes, and those aren't them.
I'll give you the same trade off with the estate taxes as I do with corporate taxes. I'll drop the estate tax to 0, but then you have to give up all "stepped up" bases for unrealized gains associated with the estate. If Uncle Ed bought the farm for $1/acre 70 years ago and it's now worth $1,000 acre when you inherit it, congrats, you don't have to pay taxes on the estate, but if and when you go to sell it, your capital gains on that land is now $999/acre, not $0 as it is under the current code. And those realized gains get taxed as normal income now, as well.
S33 wrote:After reading through this again, it's funny to me that NEVER is the solution to a healthier budget and additional transit options to rest on the shoulders of smarter government spending. it is only about increasing the government's budget via taxation, corporate or otherwise.

God forbid we, as a mass, encourage the government to stop spending money like an addict on a coke-fueled binge. Silly me for even suggesting it.
We can't cut our way out this completely. Nor would it be responsible to even try. We could cut all discretionary spending, including the military, and still run a deficit.

The solution, therefore, is a mix of cuts and taxes, shocking as though that may be. So I'm trying to find out which tax increase would be acceptable, given that some form of increased revenue will be necessary. You don't like any taxes, great, neither do I. But they're a necessary evil, so which one or ones are you willing to accept in order to have a working, functional government?
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

I understand there is a difference between the actual (effective) and statutory corporate tax rate, however, the statutory tax rate is a pretty big red flag for investment as it suggests, at any time, the US could repeal Bush tax cuts and reform offshore tax-sheltering. Basically, it is very probable that our corporations, depending on who spearheads legislative reform, could at anytime pay much closer to the statutory rate. (also to keep in mind, many corporations abroad pay significantly less than their statutory rates, as well.)

But this is all completely beside my main point. In my haphazard rant above when I mention "discretionary spending", I should have worded it properly and said "to use discretion and responsibility in spending".

My point stands: As we sit here and twiddle our thumbs about who pays for what, it is ludicrous that we NEVER think that possibly our government is spending trillions in toward misguided "needs" while transportation is in desperate need of reform. Really, the US is 5% of the worlds population and 50% of the worlds military budget? Are we preparing for an interstellar invasion?

Instead, we suggest increasing the government's budget right from our own pockets. Where's the sense in that?

Here's a scenario: Your employer wants to make improvements in your office, new floors, paint, etc. However, your employer doesn't have the funds it needs to make the improvements, so they decide the best option is not to go out and find more work, or to become more profitable, but instead, is to take from your salary to make the improvements.

It doesn't make sense in that scenario, why is it acceptable when the government needs more funding and is not willing to spend smarter or to become more profitable? Shouldn't they have been the ones to use sound fiscal responsibility to put us in the position to make the necessary transportation improvements?

The government has more than ample funding to put a train on every fuking street corner in the country, they just choose to spend it on |expletive|.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

5280 wrote:Urbanite vs. Suburbanite

Twenty miles is...

Urbanite: A day trip.
Suburbanite: A one-way trip to work.

You secretly think...

Urbanite: Your suburban friends are bad with money; they paid way too much for that five-bedroom cookie-cutter monstrosity.
Suburbanite: Your city friends are bad with money; they pay rent.

You can’t live without...

Urbanite: Fresh sushi.
Suburbanite: Freshly cut grass.

A bicycle is...

Urbanite: An eco-friendly form of transportation.
Suburbanite: A child’s plaything.

You think you’re cool...

Urbanite: Because you have three plots in your community’s urban garden.
Suburbanite: Because you have a three-car garage—and a garden.

Your bumper sticker says...

Urbanite: “Coexist.”
Suburbanite: “My child is an honor student at (insert school name).”

Your most annoying conversational habit is...

Urbanite: Telling your suburban friends about the great Moroccan joint that just opened down the street that serves the most amazing harira soup—and gosh you haven’t had that since your last visit to North Africa.
Suburbanite: Telling your city friends that they could have a place the size of Morocco if they bought the house next door to you.

A neighbor’s dog just “number two’d” on someone else’s lawn. You...

Urbanite: Burst out of your town house and scold the dog owner about the need to preserve green spaces.
Suburbanite: Call your homeowners association and log an anonymous complaint.

Giving directions to Little Raven Street...

Urbanite: Is easy. Obviously, it’s the street downtown where Zengo is located.
Suburbanite: Is easy. Obviously, it’s the street after Little Raven Road that forks off of Little Raven Boulevard right before it turns into Little Raven Circle and loops around Little Raven Park.

You’re cutting it close for dinner downtown and can’t find parking. You...

Urbanite: Skip the appetizers and drive around the block 14 times until a spot opens up.
Suburbanite: Skip dinner altogether and drive 14 miles home.

You’ve just visited friends who live a half hour away. Your first thought as the door closes on your way out is...

Urbanite: How can they live like this?
Suburbanite: How can they live like this?
Post Reply