RE: [LandCafe] Re: Spirit Level
Well put, Roy. May I use those last 2 paras?
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1"Yes, and those who didn't take or purchase it in the
> <roy_langston1@> wrote:
> > > Should people who don't even use a car be paying
> > > the full cost of the highways and bridges and other
> > > vehicle-oriented infrastructure, through taxes on
> > > the value of land they occupy?
> > Car users have to pay landholders for access to the
> > roads, so yes.
> > > What does that incentivize?
> > Efficient investment in road infrastructure.
> I don't understand either those answers. Access to
> current roads was purchased (or taken) in the past
> wasn't it?
past now pay those who did.
> In what way do car users (who don't live near mostWhat they pay in land rent is not just for nearby
> of the roads they use) now pay landholders for
roads but for access to the whole road network.
> Would you mind explaining further? Thanks.If the value of road infrastructure is not recovered
from landholders, they are getting a subsidy, and
if government tries to get users to pay instead,
efficient use of the infrastructure is discouraged.
We have seen this locally where a much-needed bridge
was built, greatly increasing land value on both
sides of the river, but the government is trying to
get users to pay for it with tolls. Result: it is
very under-used, and the congestion elsewhere that
it was built to relieve has not been relieved.
No government anywhere is ever so broke or desperate
that it can't find a way to increase the welfare
subsidy giveaway to landowners.
-- Roy Langston
- Living near Chicago (where we will host Dave Wetzel in a couple weeks btw) I have plenty of experience with congestion. I repeat, no one likes traffic jams, at least not on a daily basis. Those who have access to safe, efficient public transit generally use it. However, efficient transit in Chicago -- particularly the suburbs, and poorer areas of the city---is limited, and they're cutting service and raising rates. My argum$ent is fund better transit and you don't need to punish people for driving since fewer people have to drive.
To me, penalizing driving on top of collecting land rent for transit, crosses over into the realm of social engineering.
I realize one can analogize temporary occupation of the road to occupyimg land, but it seems to me it's unnecessary (for the above reason). Plus it's intrusive since to be efficient it must involve electronic tracking. It can be made anonymous,in theory, but it would be absurd to expect that from the same govts that are maniacally lining every street with cameras.
writers wrote a book titled "
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "DavidH" <discodave1974@> wrote:
> > Congestion charging: Why?
> There are many reason why. Most just common sense.
> Dave Wetzel was instrumental in getting the charge into London and
> viewed it as a supplement to LVT.
> * Those who pollute pay for it - London has the world's largest
> underground rail system (and very efficient), if you do not use it you
> * Congestion charging reduces harmful pollution.
> * The charge aids funding more eco public transport.
> * The charge WORKS!
> Do you want to choke yourself to death?
> Land value tax, buttressed by:
> 1. Resource royalties
> 2. Pollution charges
> 3. Congestion charges
> Is the perfect revenue source.