A HOV ?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Please tell a simple eastsider... what is this HOV everyone is taling about? some kind of a multi passenger veh lane? Geeeze,, we only have one stoplight in town...........

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 17, 1999

Answers

HOV= high occupancy vehicle. HOV lane=the only highway improvement we are seeing. Lanes designed to force people to either ride the bus or in car pools. The ultimate plan is to convert the entire highway system to HOVs only to limit personal mobility and force the population to centralize in filthy, dirt, disease-ridden and crime-ridden cities so we can be better controlled by the central government.

Byte me Jeff

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 18, 1999.


Jeff -- you're showing some real cultural ignorance, there! In most of the world's major cities, centralization happens all the time. When a large part of the tax-paying population lives in the city center, or rides public transportation to get there, a funny thing happens. Guess what? All those nice people who don't like filthy, dangerous cities or unreliable, dangerous public transportation put pressure on their governments to improve said cities and transport. The result is that cities remain vital, fun, reasonably safe places. Perhaps you should broaden your experiential base, before making the kind of comments that perpetuate the "ignorant American" image.

-- J. Kemp (jhofmannkemp@netscape.net), September 18, 1999.

Querido madd Jack Kemp (please come back and run for president -- a former football pro vs. a former basketball pro -- it'll be so awesome dude!)

Sorry for accidentally misleading you into a credibility-damaging false assumption but...that wasn't me.

As far as your ongoing fear of riding the 358 to work everyday with "those people" (you know, the "smelly" ones -- let me guess what color they are, jakko...), it seems to me that our beloved american heartland (the Midwest) is a more dangerous place lately than the big bad coastal cities, in light of all the school shootings, burning alive of gays, dragging of defenseless old black men behind pickup trucks, decapitations, cult rituals, etc. we've seen in the news lately...

Funny how all this stuff seems to happen out in our idyllic small towns, far from the supposedly Mad Max-like portrait of Urban America you wish to paint...

I've lived in and around Downtown Seattle for the past eleven years and my life has not once been threathed by any Black Male Crime Committer or Drunk Injun or Smelly Wetback. I have however, been nearly killed many a time on the streets of Downtown Seattle, and you wanna guess by who?

Dumbass yuppies driving SUV's!

(a true story, and one of the many reasons I have no sympathy whatsoever for auto drivers who, ahem, WHINE about driving being such an expensive habit!)

Rave on, madd Jack Kemp, rave on!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 20, 1999.


Sorry Jeff, but I have to agree with Mad Jack on this. It is in the politicians best interest that people consolidate into the cities, and not for humanitarian reasons either. You see it is a simple formula in politics, the more votes that you can concentrate in one area the more overall area you can control. Why do you think that it only takes a majority vote from King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to out vote the rest of the entire state? Who do you think really pays for all of the "necessary services" that King County and Seattle Metro provide? The real money comes in from the "rural" parts of the county, you know the rich guys that live on the eastside. Of course there is a flaw in the plan; who is going to pay the high property taxes when everyone is living in studios in the city. (That's SARCASM there for anyone who missed it!)

-- Mike Smith (smithm@pos-data.com), September 20, 1999.

Mike Smith wrote, "The real money comes in from the "rural" parts of the county, you know the rich guys that live on the eastside."

So you see some kind of evil plot to force urbanization for control reasons? Actually, the urban centers complain about the "urban subsidy", by which they mean the revenue generated in the cities that gets spent in the rural areas. Lets think about this a little. Revenue is generated by tax base, retail sales, business taxes, etc. Urban stuff. Expenses are generated by service needs, like roads, public facilities, staff to service the population, etc. People spread out over more land, means more road for every 1000 people, more miles to patrol for each cop, and more maintenance for the road crew and more time for the snow plow. Services for a 1000 rural people all spread out should naturally cost more than for 1000 urban people all bunched together.

On the other hand, rural people tend not to need as much government help, and the rural people help generate that urban revenue. They drive to the cities to buy stuff, and work, and go to the movies; so they ought to get some of that urban revenue as a subsidy in some form. How that all works has been a debate in King County for several years.

King County has encouraged urban "infill" to save money on infrastructure needs, as required by the state GMA. It is a plot, but not for control reasons, other than to control costs.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.



"Revenue is generated by tax base, retail sales, business taxes, etc. Urban stuff." Lets not forget property taxes!

I'm not saying that there is any "plot" to "control" people. What I am saying is that it takes votes to get elected and to stay elected. If you can concentrate enough votes in one area then you get elected. Simple. Of course it takes money to provide the services that were promised in the campaign, so you need to raise that money through taxes. The problem is that if you tax the people that voted for you too heavily, then they won't elect you next time. The solution of course is to "hide" the taxes in ways that doesn't affect people directly. A person living in an apartment on Magnolia doesn't pay the property tax the landlord does (yes, the landlord passes that expense on but it is "hidden" in the rent). Also, as a good politician you must convince your "constituents" that you are doing everything you can to help them and that it really is much better if everyone lives together in the city. Its much more efficient you know.

The problem with this kind of "logic" is that it doesn't pan out. As an example, in most rural areas your fire departments are still "volunteer". This means that, while there are still expenses, the costs to run these departments are still lower for the area they serve.

Finally if there really was an "urban subsidy", why where the county and city governments in such a panic a few years ago when east King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties were talking about splitting and forming one or two new counties. It would seem that the "urban" areas would be glad to get rid of those parts of the counties that were "siphoning" off funds that could be better spent in the cities. However, one of the primary arguments against splitting was about how much revenue would be "lost" and how could it possibly be made up if it happened.

My point is, don't give politicians and government so much credit. All they really want is to take our money and tell us how to live.

-- Mike Smith (smithm@pos-data.com), September 21, 1999.


"Lets not forget property taxes! " Indeed,the largest single revenue source for King County. Property taxes 40%, Sales 32%, MVET 13%, Hotel-Motel 2%, telephone 1%, Local excise tax 1%, All others 11%. http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/02econ.pdf

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 21, 1999.

Mike:

OK, lets not forget property tax. As long as 5 acres in a rural area can be purchased for $50,000 and 5 acres in Seattle would cost $50,000,000 the urban areas generate more from that tax also. On top of that, in a rural area you get one home on 5 acres ($250,000) and in Seattle you got one 50 floor office building on 5 acres ($250 Million?). People and businesses generate more public revenue, and cause reduced public expense, when they are packed together.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.


"People and businesses generate more public revenue, and cause reduced public expense, when they are packed together" I fail to see how packing people together would necessarily generate more public revenue. More public revenue per square inch certainly, but I don't understand why they would necessarily generate more public revenue in absolute terms, compared to the same population if it were dispersed. I am also not sure about reduced public expense. You would potentially get some economies of scale on things like roadways, but other things like sewers would be more, not less expensive. Any public works that required you to rip up roads or condemn private property would be more, not less expensive. An interesting question d. Why don't you give me what documentation you can and I'll do a little research too, and we'll see what the figures show.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.

Jeff-- apologies to you, although I think you misunderstood me. I meant to reply to Maddjack. (Also, I'm female and in no way related to Jack Kemp). I think you misunderstood my feelings about inner cities and public transportation. I fully support the revitalization of city life, and relish living in a heterogenous society. My greatest fear for the country is that, with suburbanization, we are creating a greater ability for people to withdraw from society at large, choosing rather to glorify a culture of the individual -- ironically, the culture of so-called Humanism decried by so many on the right. Sorry if I gave offense.

-- J. Kemp (jhofmannkemp@netscape.net), September 22, 1999.


Gary:

The concentration limits the miles of transmission pipe, and miles of roads, size of police patrol areas, etc. on a per capita basis. The public cost for plumbing to an apartment house is about the same as a single home, at the input end. Treatment, of course, would be detrermined by volume. Just examples.

As for revenue, the urban subsidy is essentially what sales tax equalization is all about - as one relatively simple case. Residential communities get little or nothing in direct sales tax revenue, but their residents still spend money somewhere. Most of it is spent in urban areas, because that is where the stores are. Tukwilla is "rich" in revenue on a per capita basis, because the region buys from their stores, more people work there than live there, and commercial property is generally worth more than single family residential property. Communities that have no employment centers, and most rural areas, have service needs based on population and road miles and pipe miles etc. Sales tax equalization is supposed to capture some of that revenue created by bedroom community residents, and get it back to those communities. I am sure we could find other similar examples.

As for research, I am surprised more is needed. This has been a fairly well investigated topic. When new cities are formed the tax equalization money is often what makes them viable financilly. Rural areas don't get tax equalization. Even designated urban areas (that may not have much taxable retail sales) don't get it unless they form a city.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.


References d, references. You may be entirely right, but I'd like to see facts rather than homilies. I also still fail to see how packing people together would necessarily generate more public revenue. You are talking about distribution of one area compared to another. For the state as a whole, how would the people with their salaries, purchases, personal property and land/home ownership contribute more or less if they were dispersed over a wider area? clearly, there would be economic winners and losers in such a dispersal, but how would the net change? You may be right, but I just don't see it, and would prefer something more factual to review than your assertions. Please don't take offense, I'm just asking for suggestions for references I can review to understand this issue better. Nor am I saying that research is needed. Just point me to the research that has been done, and let me read it.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.

to J. Kemp,

No offense meant to you personally, the part about "that wasn't me" was directed to both of you, but my screed about the B.S. mythology of urban centers being Black Zones of Immorality was directed at maddjak, who has spilt such drool sans fin all over this forum. Sounds like you & I are in complete agreement, then, on how cities, when they function properly (i.e., when the people's money goes to serve the people via infrastructure and combatting poverty rather than building parking garages for the smug and over-dressed!), are great places to live in.

The only reason I've ever personally thought about abandoning Seattle was not to get away from the Smelly Darkies but rather because it once seemed doomed to forever remain the yuppie hell-hole which it has recently become. But the upcoming City Council may turn out with a progressive majority, leading the way to make Seattle once again a place for the working class, not a service area for arugula-slurping yuppies with cell-phones glued to their ears. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

As far as the density issue which relates to I-695 and which has been addressed (usually with eloquence) elsewhere in this forum: a writer in the Stranger noted recently that the Puget Sound region has faced an inevitable choice between N.Y.C.-like density and L.A.-like sprawl, and, in his words, "the battle is over and density won."

As someone who's lived in Seattle since 1988, when the whole city still drove nice'n'slow like they do in Ballard, I don't like density. But it's here and we've got to deal with it. It's either public transit or gridlock to put L.A. to shame, if such a thing is possible!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 22, 1999.


P.S.,

Lest I be misinterpreted: "nice'n'slow", not as in Ultimate Gridlock, but as in we still had (in 1988) room on the streets and a bare minimum of Important Yuppies in a Ridiculous Hurry.

Later!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 22, 1999.


Gary:

Perhaps the easiest information to get is in the financial feasability studies done for the Boundary Review Board, when each of the new cities was created. In King County, Sammamish is the most recent, and perhaps the most informative. They have relatively little retail sales, for an almost entirely bedroom community. Others that are recent are Covington and Maple Valley, both of which have a somewhat better mix of retail, but would still get sales tax equalization because they can't match the sales level of the urban core.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.



d- Your missing the core of my questions. I'm not talking about sales tax equalization, I'm talking about the two issues that were raised. 1. Does increased population density generate more public revenue. 2. Does increased density generate less public expense. The issue isn't really bedroom community or tax equalization status, it's whether from a public expense and revenue standpoint, you do better with a concentrated or dispersed population, ie., if I have a million people and spread them over the entire state, does that make public revenue and expense more or less than if I put them in 200 square miles at 5000 people per square mile? And if there is a difference, what's the optimum concentration/sq mile? 2000? 3000? 4000? , etc.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.

Gary:

On the question of whether a concentrated population generates more revenue, for government or in general, I have no specific information. I can speculate that cities exist because they are more effective for business, and therefore in generating the wealth that eventually gets taxed. An economist could probably get specific about the generated wealth of an urban or rural population.

If we are just talking about urban workers spread out over more area, with farther to go to work, the concentration probably does not make much difference except in the distribution of where the wealth is located ($300,000 home in a rural setting vs $300,000 townhouse/condo in an urban setting). If the worker earns it, they will put a big part of their income into residential real estate somewhere.

On that basis, the real difference is in the cost of providing services and facilities if the population is spread out. With all the talk about highway funds, mass transit, ferry costs, added pipes for the water and sewer systems, added road miles needed for the spread-out residences, more time and staff needed for road maintenance and large police patrol areas, same for fire and EMS, etc. etc. it seems obvious that a concentrated population would be less expensive to provide services for. If you want to get more specific than, "it seems obvious"; someone will need to state some planning assumptions and compare two typical situations.

My brother-in-law is an architect; and some of the utopian city planning he sometimes refers to, is about stacked communities with levels for different activities but everything within walking distance. I think Asimov (sp?) wrote some science fiction with the expectation that would become inevitable at some point in the distant future. If you want to quantify the savings, if you assume everyone can walk to work you could start with the DOT budget. All we would need are the 4 lane inter-city highways if we didn't have to deal with the commute traffic. The optimum concentration would seem to depend on your assumptions. These seem to be city planner kinds of questions, who have their own vocabulary and analysis methods. That's not my area, but it is interesting to speculate.

The only way to make it work, unfortunately, is through a loss of freedom and options. Given the choice, much of the population will opt for a commute over living in a city. Cities try to make urban living attractive, and for some it works; but many want the urban salary BECAUSE it permits them to buy the suburban or rural dream. The USSR put everyone in apartment houses, because it was cheaper and because they could. Not because that was where people really wanted to live. We value individual choice here, to the point that what is most efficient is impossible to achieve.

The GMA tries to force concentration, by making the cost of being spread out even higher than it naturally would be, by the regulations that are involved. Or perhaps it is just identification of the real costs of being spread out, and passing them on to those who make that choice. Social engineering, I think they call it. Personally, I like the suburban/rural environment, and I was able to find work with a 5 minute commute. If that were possible for everyone, at least the highway costs for commuters could be saved.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 23, 1999.


d-

You may well be right. I simply haven't had time to really get into the facts and figures. Beginning with the rural electrification program (even before MY time) we have decreased the relative advantages of living in the cities. Their advantage always was one of communications, service type support, and politics (All roads lead to Rome) despite serious logistics problems supporting them. Dealing in an environmentally friendly way with the sewerage of one person per square mile is infinitely easier than dealing with 5000 per square mile. Conversely, providing quality medical care is more cost effective if you bunch people up, for utilization purposes. I think the megatrends may be working in opposition to the cities however, with the internet, satellite communications, e-commerce, etc. Some technologies on the horizon such as fuel cells, telemedicine, distance learning, and the like, may further negate the advantage of the city. An interesting topic. Like you, I doubt that many would willingly enter the walk to everything utopian city your brother-in- law is planning. One of these days I'll really research this. Maybe after I retire.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 24, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ