If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> > > Brent P wrote: > >> > You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at >> > Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to >> > fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This >> > department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel >> > taxes. >> >> Cite? >> >> Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of your >> ass. > > The Chicago Budget is available on line. Look it up before > implying I "pulled it out of my ass." The link is session > related and too long to fit in a normal window. You can trry > this tinyurl version, but I won't gaurantee it works - > http://tinyurl.com/99jjx http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...ARY_TABLES.pdf Funny, this doesn't break down which dollars are spent on what. Just what comes in per fund and what is expected to be spent. It's impossible to tell from here what dollars went where. Snow plowing is streets and san, (so is pot hole filling as I remember) And then there is the police department as well. These appear to be funded out of the 'corporate' fund that is supported by property tax directly. See: http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...OPERATIONS.pdf The transporation department appears to be as you claim, but they are far from the only department that keeps the roads usuable in the city. And they are spending every dollar they take in. > How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues > are paying for roads. You constantly use this the basis for > your claim that bike riders are paying for roads. It's just one way. But look up any suburban town. What do you think pays for the police force (which significantly deals with autos in these towns)? The snow plowing in the winter? The local roads? Where else are they getting the money? If you want my cite, see the city of chicago budget. It shows a fair amount of property tax funds going to the roads. |
Ads |
#422
|
|||
|
|||
Wayne Pein wrote:
> I would send those pictures to whatever agency(ies) > designed/built/paid for them. It would provide evidence that the > subbase was inferior. Perhaps they would then extend then effort on > the front end to build it better. They might also prohibit heavy > motorized maintenance vehicles from using it (if that is applicable), > or else build it to support those vehicles. You might also send the > pictures to a local newspaper in order to foment some outrage at > shoddy construction. If they build it too good, then no one gets no work... an' taxes prolly gotta go up... Matt O. |
#423
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote: > > In article >, C. E. White wrote: > > > > > > Brent P wrote: > > > >> > You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at > >> > Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to > >> > fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This > >> > department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel > >> > taxes. > >> > >> Cite? > >> > >> Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of your > >> ass. > > > > The Chicago Budget is available on line. Look it up before > > implying I "pulled it out of my ass." The link is session > > related and too long to fit in a normal window. You can trry > > this tinyurl version, but I won't gaurantee it works - > > http://tinyurl.com/99jjx > > http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...ARY_TABLES.pdf > > Funny, this doesn't break down which dollars are spent on what. > Just what comes in per fund and what is expected to be spent. > It's impossible to tell from here what dollars went where. Look for the summary.pdf file. > Snow plowing is streets and san, (so is pot hole filling as I remember) > And then there is the police department as well. These appear to be funded > out of the 'corporate' fund that is supported by property tax directly. See: > http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...OPERATIONS.pdf See below for more info on this subject. > The transporation department appears to be as you claim, but they are far > from the only department that keeps the roads usuable in the city. And > they are spending every dollar they take in. What government agency doesn't spend every dollar it takes in? I am only concenrned with the money spend to build and maintiain roads. Not the money for other items. Define usuable. Raleigh (my home town) spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of road tax money landscaping roads and buiding sidewalks. This is not increasing the usability of the roads for motor vehicles. Other road tax money is spent on studying (not even buildig or operating) a light rail system. This isn't increasing the usability of the roads either. > > How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues > > are paying for roads. You constantly use this the basis for > > your claim that bike riders are paying for roads. > > It's just one way. But look up any suburban town. What do you think pays > for the police force (which significantly deals with autos in these towns)? > The snow plowing in the winter? The local roads? Where else are they > getting the money? So if there were no cars, there would be no need for police? No need for snow removal? I am talking about where the money comes from for building and maintining roads. Using your logic, I suppose we could include the NASA budget as justification for bike to use the highways. > If you want my cite, see the city of chicago budget. It shows a fair > amount of property tax funds going to the roads. Your cite of the Streets and Sanitation is for the garbage men (mostly). So you are saying that bikes have a right to use the streets becasue property tax is used for garbage collection and snow removal? Besides if you actually look at the summary tables significant chucks of the motor vehicle revenue is diverted to both the police and sanitation departments (and several others as well). For Chicago both the Dept of Transsportation and Streets and Sanitation are supported by non-property tax funds. Vehicle Tax Fund Revenue - 158,259,000 Motor Fuel Tax Fund Revenue - 88,490,000 Streets and Sanitation got 63,115,329 from the Vehicle Tax Fund Chicago Department of Transportation only got 31,800,442 from the Vehicle Tax Fund Streets and Sanitation got 44,895,699 from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund. Chicago Department of Transportation only got 28,280,685 from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund. In general the Chicago Streets and Sanitation budget dwarfs the Chicago Department of Transportation Budget. Only a small fraction of Streets and Sanitation's Budget is for "Street Operations." By far the largest part is for garbage collection. The Burea of Electricty, which is under Steets and Sanitation, gets almost as much money as street operations. The snow removal budget was only $18 million. Pavement and Bridge maintenance was only $28 million. Since Streets and Sanitation got more than $100 million from vehicle and fuel taxes, I think even you can see that Motor Vehicles are paying for the roads and much more - at least in Chicago. I think if you will carefully review the budget, you will see that motor vehicle revenues are being diverted to pay for other servies, instead of Property Tax revenues being diverted to pay for roads - at least in Chicago. Regards, Ed White |
#424
|
|||
|
|||
See
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/graynotebook.pdf http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...ackage2005.pdf http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/2005/ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Funding.htm As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax, Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department of Transportation does not show revenue from any other sources in their budget. I see some vehicle derived revenue in Washington is being used for "future fish barrier removal projects" I am sure that will make the roads more usable. Ed wrote: > > C. E. White wrote: > > > > Where do you live? > > WA. > > E.P. |
#425
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote: > See > > http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/graynotebook.pdf > http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...ackage2005.pdf > http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/2005/ > http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Funding.htm > > As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of > Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax, > Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of > Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department > of Transportation does not show revenue from any other > sources in their budget. WADOT ain't the only road-building and street-maintaining game in town. That fish thing? I think it's about where roadways cross salmon streams. Not sure about that, but it does have to do with roads and access. E.P. |
#426
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote
> C. E. White wrote: > That fish thing? I think it's about where roadways cross salmon > streams. Not sure about that, but it does have to do with roads and > access. Indeed you are exactly right. In fact, us enviros are supporting transportation improvements when those projects improve existing conditions. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I90...almiePassEast/ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90...oKeechelusDam/ and http://www.i90wildlifebridges.org/ FYI, one of the main causes of accidents on I90 are deer/elk kills, and this would help reduce them. Of interest to rec.bicycles.misc, one of the *original* WADOT proposals would have placed the eastbound lanes essentially on top of the Iron Horse Trail (a rails-to-trails fantastic mt. bike experience) on the other side of Lk. Keechelus. See http://www.theslowlane.com/paths/iron.html and http://www.parks.wa.gov/parkpage.asp...Horse&pageno=1 FloydR |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote in message >...
>As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of >Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax, >Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of >Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department >of Transportation does not show revenue from any other >sources in their budget. That's nice. Since the vast majority of my bicycle miles are not on state highways, I am not sure exactly how this is relevant. If I am not mistaken, city streets are paid for through property and sales tax in our state, no? And there are lots of state highways my gas tax and license fees pay for, when I'm in the car, that I'll never drive on, like in Asotin County, or some place, so let's consider it a wash. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky |
#429
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads? > That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax > for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use > the roads. > Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying > USER taxes. > Yes, you are correct. Legislators have made rules that if you want to operate a motor vehicle, you have to meet certain obligations. They have also let those who choose to operate a bicycle to not have to meet those same obligations. If bicycle drivers were required to have a license and registration, then they would do so. Some tax payers that don't have children still have to pay for schools. In some places there is extra tax for schools. Taxpayers have to pay for many ammenities that they may not use. Those are the rules. If you don't like the rules, change them or ignore them. Or reject paying a user fee and swear off cars. Or in your case, just incessantly bitch about them. Wayne |
#430
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> Look for the summary.pdf file. That's what I looked at. > > What government agency doesn't spend every dollar it takes > in? The point is that streets and san and other departments supported clearly by property tax do things for the roads. > So if there were no cars, there would be no need for police? There wouldn't be a need for as many of them. > No need for snow removal? I am talking about where the money > comes from for building and maintining roads. Using your > logic, I suppose we could include the NASA budget as > justification for bike to use the highways. *sigh* you'll keep playing semantic games endlessly. Because that's all this 'bicyclists don't pay' nonsense is. > Your cite of the Streets and Sanitation is for the garbage > men (mostly). You show your ignorance of chicago. Scott, tell this man what many of the snow plows are durring the summer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action | John Harlow | Driving | 8 | April 15th 05 01:55 AM |
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 4 | April 9th 05 07:05 PM |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training | Brent P | Driving | 6 | April 3rd 05 12:14 AM |
Someone's Taking the Piss | SteveH | Alfa Romeo | 11 | July 30th 04 02:36 PM |