Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#41

Post by msellout » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

bagels wrote: post #14

I don't know why the author only does an analysis of just property taxes contributing to road maintenance. Most people in the US are contributing additional taxes in the form of: * Gasoline taxes * State and local sales taxes * State and federal income taxes Those taxes are available to build and maintain infrastructure as well. Whether they are [used for that purpose] or not is a different question. I know that I am…

The author excluded roads financed by gasoline tax from the analysis. I don't remember reading about sales and income taxes in the article, but perhaps those are in the same category.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#42

Post by massysett » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

HighPlainsDrftr wrote: post #37

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefit…

"I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with."

Dramatic reduction in particulate air pollution.

There have been programs to reduce air pollution in towns along the US - Mexico border. Folks on the US side paid to have roads paved in Mexico so it would reduce pollution--it was cheaper than taking incremental steps on the US side.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#43

Post by kuschku » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #22

rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.

Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.

> You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together.

And yet, that’s what’s being built in most of europe.

Make streets smaller, remove parking, build mixed use buildings.

[1] http://www.kn-online.de/var/storage/images/kn/news/nachricht...

[2] http://abload.de/img/img_1863whsfj.jpg

[3] http://www.schlossquartier-kiel.de/fileadmin/images/01.jpg

Be it one-lane roads, be it building mixed use buildings, etc – these projects are all either built this year, or still under construction.

It’s not a global issue, definitely more of a US issue.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#44

Post by jtsnow » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #9

There's this assumption that are $15-$18 per square foot. I'm no expert here, but I think that number might be roughly double what cities actually pay, based on this document from the State of Michigan : https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-Y... It's a decade old, but I'm seeing only $8/square foot cost, not $15+. Using the rest of the authors map + numbers, the majority of properties are now ac…

Yes, I think you are right. Here is an analysis that places the 30-year lifecycle costs of a road at $8.63 per square foot: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/7/10/fiscal-impacts-...

This research seems more thorough, but still concludes that low-density developments often require much more than 30 years to pay off a road's 30-year lifecycle.

Edit: Looks like OP's calculations are based on how much of the collected taxes actually goes to the road budget.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#45

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #3

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

Interesting article, and great visuals. The Sankey Diagram of the budget was very nice and of course all the interactive maps bear mentioning. I think that anecdote about the "free" parking structure was really telling. The federal government swooped in and built a bunch of parking space then left the lesser governments squabbling over whose responsibility it wasn't. More importantly, I think the best solution is to…

I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to…

[deleted]

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#46

Post by dionidium » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

massysett wrote: post #31

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi sche…

So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it.

I think you (and probably the author) have got this exactly backwards. Sprawl creates blight when the rate of building outpaces the needs of population growth. The evil sprawlsters are creating new costs, but they aren't subsidizing old roads. The sprawl usually happens outside of long-ago drawn city borders, anyway.

If you have 5 families living in 5 houses in the urban core and you build 5 new houses for them to live in out in the suburbs, then population needs to double for there to be full occupancy.

As a case study, take a look at my home town of St. Louis. Much has been made about the city's population loss. But that's just in the urban core; the region's population has actually grown slightly over the last 40 years. It just hasn't grown fast enough to fill up all the new houses we've built out across the river.

The sprawlsters aren't subsidizing the old roads. They have completely abandoned them and are leaving them to nature.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#47

Post by maxerickson » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

machrider wrote: post #39

HighPlainsDrftr wrote: post #37

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefit…

For one thing, you can safely go a lot faster on asphalt than on dirt while still being able to round corners and come to a stop.

If you draw a distinction between streets (~access) and roads (~transport) that isn't really a good reason. People around here drive too fast on streets as it is.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#48

Post by maxerickson » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #35

akchin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generati…

While I'm with you on prop 13, we combine high income taxes with exceptionally low property taxes for long term property holders. Again, if we want nice things, we have to pay for them. As for pensions, you say unsustainable promises, I say stealing from people who took cash later instead of cash immediately. Consider your last boss deciding to reach into your checking account and take $40k out because the business r…

It's possible to be unhappy with underfunded pensions and also think it would be unfair to change them retroactively.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#49

Post by thescriptkiddie » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

massysett wrote: post #31

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi sche…

You seem to be reading a tone into this article that I'm not. I didn't perceive a complaint that people don't pay for what they use, I perceived a complaint that the city of Ames is spending a huge portion of their budget on roads that may or may not be necessary. Putting the cost of these roads in terms of property tax is an interesting way of looking at this problem, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has to pay for their share of the road in full.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#50

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #35

akchin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generati…

While I'm with you on prop 13, we combine high income taxes with exceptionally low property taxes for long term property holders. Again, if we want nice things, we have to pay for them. As for pensions, you say unsustainable promises, I say stealing from people who took cash later instead of cash immediately. Consider your last boss deciding to reach into your checking account and take $40k out because the business r…

The point is that the politicians back then stole from the future. If they were going to promise cash in the future the should have set aside money back then to pay for it.

It's one thing when a government borrows money to pay for a capital project that will last long after they are out of office. The net present value of an accruing pension is an operating cost and should be paid for as the obligation is incurred.