The slow transition would mitigate a lot of that, but a solution to oil dependence is going to screw a lot of people, it's just going to screw a lot more if we wait until later, when we're forced to solve it.
And most of our cities could be a lot more densely populated, and as buildings get torn down/rebuilt, they'll be built with that in mind, which will help control the costs of living there.
And let's be honest, here: it really isn't going to be all that hard to mitigate the extra gas cost by using public transit or carpooling from the 'burbs. Just a bit inconvenient. It'll mostly be something new renters/homebuyers take into consideration when getting their new places.
Ok, that's a good answer for the suburbs, but for the rural areas that doesn't really solve anything. If everyone who lives in a rural area and has to commute to the big cities to work moves to the big cities who is going to be buying their houses? As far as I can tell, no one. If everyone is moving to the cities/suburbs it will destroy the housing market in the rural areas. Not only will they not be able to get out of the rural areas, they won't be able to afford their homes. Should around 20% of the US be screwed over?
The slow increase will mitigate that. It's not going to cause demand for that sort of housing to drop altogether; they'll just lose some equity, which isn't good, but certainly isn't the end of the world.
Another related question, how many people that are convinced it is horribly inconvenient have tried it at all? For more than a week?
I take the bus 4 days a week even though it's horribly inconvenient (40+ minutes vs 5 minutes driving).
On one hand it takes forever because so few people take the bus and there's so much traffic in LA. On the other hand if everyone took the bus it would still take forever because it'd be stopping every 2 minutes to on/off-load passengers. If you try to counter that by having fewer stops, then traffic goes back up because people have to drive to the stops. And the buses need gas too - $5/gallon isn't going to help them out any.
In the early 80s LA cut fares drastically and ended up with more people on public transit than Chicago. Everyone complained, including the bus riders - too overcrowded, people were getting robbed, etc. They ended up increasing the fares to get people off the bus and have continued that way ever since, to the point where LA's about to raise fares to $120/month on a rider population with an average family income of $12,000. If they don't get the hike approved, they're cutting service by 1/3. Meanwhile, it costs over $1 billion to drill 5 miles of tunnel because no one who backs light-rail in this town wants it going through or over their neck of the woods.
So that, combined with mandatory car insurance ("I'm paying for the car anyways, so I might as well use it), will drive more people off public transit.
I think the problems you highlight are typical of the way transport policies seem to be introduced. It's always carrot or stick, but never both. Increased fuel tax will hit the poor hardest and so is pointless unless there is government investment and subsidy of public transport.
I used to work about 5-6 miles from my house and it took me 30 minutes to drive there. On the bus it would take about 90 minutes because the bus routes are set up to go to the city centre and then out again as opposed to transport around the city - the place I worked was a big office and easily justified a bus service.
I now work 30 miles from my house and it only takes me 45 minutes to get there because it's away from the city.
As long as it is made clear that $5 gas is going to screw over the bottom third of the SES bracket of the US society a whole hell of a lot more than it will the top third (who will still drive their Hummers 90 down the freeway until you make gas 500 bucks a gallon) then go for it.
I don't wnat to see one story on the news bitching about the government gouging poor people though, cause, hey, this is for the greater good.
Which is why we would use the money to increase the EITC, like I stated shortly after the OP.
So this is all just an elaborate Robin Hood plan? A punishment tax for anyone who, by the nature of their job or family situation, can't work within the constraints of public transportation or walking distance from home? With the proceeds going towards evening out the earned income of the populous? That's rich.
But as to your question, middle incomes were big players in the housing bubble so it's not surprising that there would be development targeted at them in cities. But a lot of the cost of urban housing comes from the value of the land that the building is sitting on, and not just the building itself.
Yes and no. If the property value rises then the cost of living in a building will go up, however a new development will cost more to live in due to its recent construction costs than an old building even if it was recently modernized/remodelled/brought up to code/made less cancerific. The cost of your rent/condo is dependent on both of those factors. The age of the building does come into play, not just the property tax.
So housing in an urban area relative to suburband or rural housing is likely to be of lower quality, due to there being less space or a worse construction,
Urban areas have stricter building codes which are generally more enforced than outside. Maybe there'd be less home association restrictions, but don't get me started on those assholes. A small suburb is likely to default to the state's choice which would be the latest version of IBC. Cities have their own special codes which are tacked on top of IBC and lead to better construction as a requirement. Also, taller buildings require better structural integrity and have more loads applied to them due solely to the increased surface area. If you mean to say that square footage wise it may be smaller, that is probable, but entirely dependent on where you want to live moreso than how much you want to spend. Well, the overlap of those two things, more accurately.
or due to the neighborhood, which could be crime infested.
Crime rates are on the decline, and if you are moving into an area with a vibrant street life you wind up being more safe than if you are living alone on a lot. The simple fact that you are buying the place and living there increases the level of street traffic by virtue of you being there which enhances security. If you decide to use public transit or act as a pedestrian rather than simply walking to your car and driving the security is increased that much more.
Or it could be that the housing targetted at the middle class continued the pattern of overextending on affordability systematic to the housing bubble.
I don't see how that gels with the housing being unaffordable. Unless you consider a few hundred grand to be unaffordable and we're actually supposed to be talking about low income housing.
Really depedns on the city you're talking about. LA for instance has room to grow outward and upward. NYC there's nowhere left to really build new stuff. it's all gutting out broken down buildings and making them nice.
Really depedns on the city you're talking about. LA for instance has room to grow outward and upward. NYC there's nowhere left to really build new stuff. it's all gutting out broken down buildings and making them nice.
Renovations are cheaper than new construction, but new construction attracts people away from their current pricey high rise to the newest and bestest in order to make a statement. That opens up older buildings that they were in for rent/coop which need nothing but a potential renovation to be just as attractive, but less expensive, than the new tower. It's cyclical. Plus there are plenty of lowrise townhome-esque buildings which could be replaced (again, piecemeal) with mid-rise structures that would double or triple the density without much disruption. Both in local property taxes as well as in the urban fabric of the area. When done right it enhances everything in the area and acts as a slow upward spiral.
Well, my brother lived in a house in Seattle with some friends back in the day and the facilities were definately substandard. Probably against the code, but not everyone is following the exact letter of the law, especially at the lower cost ends of housing.
But my main point in that post was that if land is more expensive, which is likely is in a non-crime infested urban area, that those costs have to be offset or passed forward to the homebuyer somehow. A common thing I have seen is housing developments where houses are right on top of each other, but that again is lower quality because there is the sacrifice of privacy and squarefootage.
But this is somewhat tangential to my main point. Which is that with draconian taxing the demand for this sort of housing would outstrip the supply of it. The cost would go up and those costs would have to be accounted for somewhere along the line, be it less desirable housing, forclosures (and possible homelessness), or whatever. And on a short timeframe the market will be much less elastic, so it will be difficult for homebuilders and citizens to adapt.
But on a long timeframe people will still be forced to adapt but will have greater capabilities to do so.
Savant on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Fun Fact: Arlington, Texas (pop. 360,000) is the largest city in the United States without conventional fixed-route public transportation! Yay bragging rights! :-\
Thankfully, I just moved from a suburb immediately outside of Arlington to an apartment in an outlying suburb of Dallas, though more because I work downtown.
I got another one: Phoenix, AZ (city 1.5M, metro 4M) is the largest city in the US with no rail system, relying entirely on busses instead. It's also the largest city in the country without cross-country passenger rail service, but considering that the US doesn't seem to give a shit about intercity passenger rail anyway that's not as interesting.
And seriously, the bus system in Phoenix sucks giant donkey dick.
Wait, weren't trains, like, lifeblood out West in the late 1800's, early 1900's? How the hell is there no rail system in Phoenix?!
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Really depedns on the city you're talking about. LA for instance has room to grow outward and upward. NYC there's nowhere left to really build new stuff. it's all gutting out broken down buildings and making them nice.
Renovations are cheaper than new construction, but new construction attracts people away from their current pricey high rise to the newest and bestest in order to make a statement. That opens up older buildings that they were in for rent/coop which need nothing but a potential renovation to be just as attractive, but less expensive, than the new tower. It's cyclical. Plus there are plenty of lowrise townhome-esque buildings which could be replaced (again, piecemeal) with mid-rise structures that would double or triple the density without much disruption. Both in local property taxes as well as in the urban fabric of the area. When done right it enhances everything in the area and acts as a slow upward spiral.
They never come out less expensive whenthey renovate becasue there's so little room the property is worth a ton. big part of NYC's issue is the restrcitive building codes(it's very hard to build a high rise in a residential area) In NYC and most high rise cities the current trend is
Middle Class neighborhood ---> Few big constructions/renovations into high class condos ----> "hot neighborhood" ---> skyrockting rents ---> high class neighborhood
Well, my brother lived in a house in Seattle with some friends back in the day and the facilities were definately substandard. Probably against the code, but not everyone is following the exact letter of the law, especially at the lower cost ends of housing.
Was he living in Seattle's equivalent to a brownstone? Also, there's a lot more options available in cities to be your home than literal houses. And at all price ranges. My sister's college bungalow in Milwaukee was a shithole in comparison to the apartment she got across town after graduation. She lost a roomate, gained effective square footage thanks to the layout, and just about broke even with cost. It was just further away from campus and the surrounding blocks weren't owned by the same slumlord. In fact, the building across from her was 3 years old and its rent for one month was what she paid all year.
But my main point in that post was that if land is more expensive, which is likely is in a non-crime infested urban area, that those costs have to be offset or passed forward to the homebuyer somehow. A common thing I have seen is housing developments where houses are right on top of each other, but that again is lower quality because there is the sacrifice of privacy and squarefootage.
Where are you living that you're so afraid of rampant crime thriving in the nearby city? I mean, yeah there's crime. There's crime in suburbia. It generally doesn't get as much attention since it's more spread out and who really gives a fuck anyway, but cities are safe. You aren't going to be immediately mugged and shot after settling in.
Also, you are apparently looking at shittily designed housing or are restricting yourself to owning everything from the dirt to the shingles and aren't willing to entertain the idea of living anywhere else.
But this is somewhat tangential to my main point. Which is that with draconian taxing the demand for this sort of housing would outstrip the supply of it. The cost would go up and those costs would have to be accounted for somewhere along the line, be it less desirable housing, forclosures (and possible homelessness), or whatever. And on a short timeframe the market will be much less elastic, so it will be difficult for homebuilders and citizens to adapt.
But on a long timeframe people will still be forced to adapt but will have greater capabilities to do so.
It all depends on how it happens. Massive, concentrated gentrification promotes slum development. Federated gentrification does not.
Really depedns on the city you're talking about. LA for instance has room to grow outward and upward. NYC there's nowhere left to really build new stuff. it's all gutting out broken down buildings and making them nice.
Renovations are cheaper than new construction, but new construction attracts people away from their current pricey high rise to the newest and bestest in order to make a statement. That opens up older buildings that they were in for rent/coop which need nothing but a potential renovation to be just as attractive, but less expensive, than the new tower. It's cyclical. Plus there are plenty of lowrise townhome-esque buildings which could be replaced (again, piecemeal) with mid-rise structures that would double or triple the density without much disruption. Both in local property taxes as well as in the urban fabric of the area. When done right it enhances everything in the area and acts as a slow upward spiral.
They never come out less expensive whenthey renovate becasue there's so little room the property is worth a ton. big part of NYC's issue is the restrcitive building codes(it's very hard to build a high rise in a residential area) In NYC and most high rise cities the current trend is
Middle Class neighborhood ---> Few big constructions/renovations into high class condos ----> "hot neighborhood" ---> skyrockting rents ---> high class neighborhood
That's because the entire neighborhood is being gentrified rather than 1 or 2 buildings inside of it.
As long as it is made clear that $5 gas is going to screw over the bottom third of the SES bracket of the US society a whole hell of a lot more than it will the top third (who will still drive their Hummers 90 down the freeway until you make gas 500 bucks a gallon) then go for it.
I don't wnat to see one story on the news bitching about the government gouging poor people though, cause, hey, this is for the greater good.
Which is why we would use the money to increase the EITC, like I stated shortly after the OP.
So this is all just an elaborate Robin Hood plan? A punishment tax for anyone who, by the nature of their job or family situation, can't work within the constraints of public transportation or walking distance from home? With the proceeds going towards evening out the earned income of the populous? That's rich.
...
No, that would just be a way to mitigate the damage done to those who are hurt most by this. If you pay the poor back as much as they spend in extra gas, they're nowhere. But now they have a much larger marginal incentive to conserve gas than they previously did. Say they spend $600 a year on gas, and it gets bumped to $1000 a year by the new gas tax. They get $400 more in EITC. If they can cut their gas expenditures in half, now, that's $500 they get, versus the $300 they would have gotten under the old system. This creates an incentive for conservation for everyone, but most especially for the poor.
As long as it is made clear that $5 gas is going to screw over the bottom third of the SES bracket of the US society a whole hell of a lot more than it will the top third (who will still drive their Hummers 90 down the freeway until you make gas 500 bucks a gallon) then go for it.
I don't wnat to see one story on the news bitching about the government gouging poor people though, cause, hey, this is for the greater good.
Which is why we would use the money to increase the EITC, like I stated shortly after the OP.
So this is all just an elaborate Robin Hood plan? A punishment tax for anyone who, by the nature of their job or family situation, can't work within the constraints of public transportation or walking distance from home? With the proceeds going towards evening out the earned income of the populous? That's rich.
...
No, that would just be a way to mitigate the damage done to those who are hurt most by this. If you pay the poor back as much as they spend in extra gas, they're nowhere. But now they have a much larger marginal incentive to conserve gas than they previously did. Say they spend $600 a year on gas, and it gets bumped to $1000 a year by the new gas tax. They get $400 more in EITC. If they can cut their gas expenditures in half, now, that's $500 they get, versus the $300 they would have gotten under the old system. This creates an incentive for conservation for everyone, but most especially for the poor.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Fun Fact: Arlington, Texas (pop. 360,000) is the largest city in the United States without conventional fixed-route public transportation! Yay bragging rights! :-\
Thankfully, I just moved from a suburb immediately outside of Arlington to an apartment in an outlying suburb of Dallas, though more because I work downtown.
I got another one: Phoenix, AZ (city 1.5M, metro 4M) is the largest city in the US with no rail system, relying entirely on busses instead. It's also the largest city in the country without cross-country passenger rail service, but considering that the US doesn't seem to give a shit about intercity passenger rail anyway that's not as interesting.
And seriously, the bus system in Phoenix sucks giant donkey dick.
Wait, weren't trains, like, lifeblood out West in the late 1800's, early 1900's? How the hell is there no rail system in Phoenix?!
There's a passanger rail system that runs to Flagstaff... I guess they just figured people would ride their horses south. It's a good question though, and I can personally attest to Phoenix having some of the worst Urban sprawl I've ever seen. They are just starting to build a mono system... but it doesn't seem that people are too excited about it.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I doubt there are many poverty level individuals out there spending much more than necessary on gas. Your system rewards people for being poor. Never works in the long run, imo. No biggie man, I think we are way too far apart on this to ever agree so I will drop it.
Nothing ever rewards people for being poor. The fact that you are poor outweighs any percieved benefit. A policy may relieve the poor but it never rewards us.
I doubt there are many poverty level individuals out there spending much more than necessary on gas. Your system rewards people for being poor. Never works in the long run, imo. No biggie man, I think we are way too far apart on this to ever agree so I will drop it.
Actually, it only helps the working poor. I don't really think helping poor people who are working is really "rewarding" anyone for being poor.
Progressive tax systems reward poor people. Just because you are still poor after you are rewarded doesn't mean you weren't rewarded.
Also, people who have computers, internet connections and enough disposable time to post on internet forums considering themselves "poor" is pretty weird to me. Just saying.
Progressive tax systems reward poor people. Just because you are still poor after you are rewarded doesn't mean you weren't rewarded.
Also, people who have computers, internet connections and enough disposable time to post on internet forums considering themselves "poor" is pretty weird to me. Just saying.
No, progressive tax systems tax poor people less. That's not a "reward," that's "you benefit least from this system, so you don't have to pay as much into it."
Progressive tax systems reward poor people. Just because you are still poor after you are rewarded doesn't mean you weren't rewarded.
Also, people who have computers, internet connections and enough disposable time to post on internet forums considering themselves "poor" is pretty weird to me. Just saying.
No, our tax system screws over the poor and forces them to subsidize the middle-upper class. Even moreso with all the loopholes that only rich people can afford to exploit. A negative income tax could be construed to 'reward' the poor, but that's about it.
I doubt there are many poverty level individuals out there spending much more than necessary on gas. Your system rewards people for being poor. Never works in the long run, imo. No biggie man, I think we are way too far apart on this to ever agree so I will drop it.
Actually, it only helps the working poor. I don't really think helping poor people who are working is really "rewarding" anyone for being poor.
Agreed. I just don't want a real effort to curb our dependence on fossil fuels to degenerate into another exercise in class warfare. They are 2 pretty distinctly different issues in my mind.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
Also, people who have computers, internet connections and enough disposable time to post on internet forums considering themselves "poor" is pretty weird to me. Just saying.
It is just gone midnight here. I leave for work at 7ish in the morning and get back around 6ish in the evening. Is that a large amount of disposable time?
Progressive tax systems? Not getting raped =/= being rewared.
No, progressive tax systems tax poor people less. That's not a "reward," that's "you benefit least from this system, so you don't have to pay as much into it."
Kinda splitting hairs I think, there are plenty of poor people getting a fat EIC check just about this time of the year. I consider that to be a reward. I can see why you might not think so.
Agreed. I just don't want a real effort to curb our dependence on fossil fuels to degenerate into another exercise in class warfare. They are 2 pretty distinctly different issues in my mind.
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
Thus the EITC increase, to offset the extra expense of the gas/taking public transportation.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
Thus the EITC increase, to offset the extra expense of the gas/taking public transportation.
Fairplay, I misread what the EITC was (I've been awake since 5am).
But my main point in that post was that if land is more expensive, which is likely is in a non-crime infested urban area, that those costs have to be offset or passed forward to the homebuyer somehow. A common thing I have seen is housing developments where houses are right on top of each other, but that again is lower quality because there is the sacrifice of privacy and squarefootage.
Where are you living that you're so afraid of rampant crime thriving in the nearby city? I mean, yeah there's crime. There's crime in suburbia. It generally doesn't get as much attention since it's more spread out and who really gives a fuck anyway, but cities are safe. You aren't going to be immediately mugged and shot after settling in.
Also, you are apparently looking at shittily designed housing or are restricting yourself to owning everything from the dirt to the shingles and aren't willing to entertain the idea of living anywhere else.
But this is somewhat tangential to my main point. Which is that with draconian taxing the demand for this sort of housing would outstrip the supply of it. The cost would go up and those costs would have to be accounted for somewhere along the line, be it less desirable housing, forclosures (and possible homelessness), or whatever. And on a short timeframe the market will be much less elastic, so it will be difficult for homebuilders and citizens to adapt.
But on a long timeframe people will still be forced to adapt but will have greater capabilities to do so.
It all depends on how it happens. Massive, concentrated gentrification promotes slum development. Federated gentrification does not.
Either you are simply missing my point or are being obtuse. It has nothing to do with being afraid of crime, it's just that bad neighborhoods will have lower property values. And, surprise surprise, there are some bad neighborhoods in cities, and those places are likely to have the most inexpensive housing. You seem to be ignoring the reality that there are some (NOT ALL) bad neighborhoods, and that if you want to find comparably priced housing in a city compared to a rural area you will have to make sacrifices, be it less space or bad surroundings. This isn't rocket surgery.
As for the gas tax, a big issue is that an excise tax on petroleum will be a regressive tax. So it is going to be the hardest on those towards the lowest end of the spectrum. Doubly so if those people cannot afford otherwise to live near where they work. You could probably shift the maximum screwover point upwards with subsidies and whatnot, but then it will just hit hardest somewhere in the lower middle class range.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
That can probably be dealt with. The main concern would be the increased crush of ridership in public transit systems unless it was prepared for. The added fares wouldn't likely supplant the added cost of upkeep and expansion that would be needed. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is a time consuming, expensive, risky gamble. It also has some catch 22's thrown in for good measure.
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
So rich people (regardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
Either you are simply missing my point or are being obtuse. It has nothing to do with being afraid of crime, it's just that bad neighborhoods will have lower property values. And, surprise surprise, there are some bad neighborhoods in cities, and those places are likely to have the most inexpensive housing. You seem to be ignoring the reality that there are some (NOT ALL) bad neighborhoods, and that if you want to find comparably priced housing in a city compared to a rural area you will have to make sacrifices, be it less space or bad surroundings. This isn't rocket surgery.
The most rural areas, yes. Suburbs, no. Rural areas just outside the grey belt, no.
You seem to be missing the point of how the upward spiral works. Crime is correlated with street activity (excepting pick pockets, they're everywhere). The more people and more lively the street the less likely a crime is to occur. When you have more people moving into an area it increases the street activity and local capital (especially if it leads to banks no longer blacklisting 'slums') which will lead to a decrease in the crime rate.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
That can probably be dealt with. The main concern would be the increased crush of ridership in public transit systems unless it was prepared for. The added fares wouldn't likely supplant the added cost of upkeep and expansion that would be needed. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is a time consuming, expensive, risky gamble. It also has some catch 22's thrown in for good measure.
This is why it needs government investment and capped fares combined with taxation.
Although that may be a bit too "socialist" for Americe.
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
So rich people (irregardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
So rich people (irregardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
Because they benefit the most from a smoothly functioning society which this is intended to continue for a long term.
Just out of curiosity- what are the current prices for Public Transport?
Over here it is (all prices for the metropolitan area (whole vienna), those are the new prices valid from the first of June, the first price hike in 5 years, 10% + on average):
1 hour : €1,7
unlimited travel
- between 8:00 a.m and 8:00 p.m : €4,60
- 24 hours : €5,70
- 72 hours : €13,60
- 8 days (basically 8 tickets for 24 hours each) : €27,20
- 1 week (Monday till Sunday) : €14
- 1 month : €49,50
- 1 year : €458
No rebates are included in this (for example, kids under 6 travel free, so do kids below the age of 15 on sundays and in the summer, you also get discounts for students, elderly, there are talks about making public transport free for homeless people).
Now, I read here that public transport seems to be unaffordable for the poor, so what are the prices in the us?
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
So rich people (irregardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
You're missing the point. If a policy to reduce energy consumption fails to take account of wage disparity then it will punish the poor more than the rich.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
Well, the increase in gas prices will cause public transportation to be a lot more viable, which will benefit the poor.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
That can probably be dealt with. The main concern would be the increased crush of ridership in public transit systems unless it was prepared for. The added fares wouldn't likely supplant the added cost of upkeep and expansion that would be needed. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is a time consuming, expensive, risky gamble. It also has some catch 22's thrown in for good measure.
This is why it needs government investment and capped fares combined with taxation.
Although that may be a bit too "socialist" for Americe.
No, it's too much of a gamble for transportation departments. Just because you build it, people won't necessarily come. Plus you have to maintain it afterwards even if it's a failed system, at least long enough to regain some of the money sunk into the system. Also, also, the long term damage that can be caused by 'fixing' problems with existing systems. It may be more efficient or effective in the end, but could have driven a large percentage of its riders away in the process and will fail to get them back for years and years. On top of the dozens of equally viable solutions that need to be filtered through in order to get one with public approval (as if design by committee was too easy) and so forth and so on. Too much risk, too much hassle, too little reward in some of the best of circumstances.
Just out of curiosity- what are the current prices for Public Transport?
Over here it is (all prices for the metropolitan area (whole vienna), those are the new prices valid from the first of June, the first price hike in 5 years, 10% + on average):
1 hour : €1,7
unlimited travel
- between 8:00 a.m and 8:00 p.m : €4,60
- 24 hours : €5,70
- 72 hours : €13,60
- 8 days (basically 8 tickets for 24 hours each) : €27,20
- 1 week (Monday till Sunday) : €14
- 1 month : €49,50
- 1 year : €458
No rebates are included in this (for example, kids under 6 travel free, so do kids below the age of 15 on sundays and in the summer, you also get discounts for students, elderly, there are talks about making public transport free for homeless people).
Now, I read here that public transport seems to be unaffordable for the poor, so what are the prices in the us?
it's a 1.25$ to ride the bus in Omaha, .05$ to get a transfer if you need to go a really long way.
We don't have any other form of mass transit (street cars died out a long time ago, the water table is too high for a subway, and the only trains that go through are Amtrak), so technically they could push the prices if they wanted to.
It costs me $1.30 to go across town on a bus, 7$ on a cab, or about 2$ worth of gas.
Howeve, gas prices don't affect me and the people I know too much because we do the same thing since I can remember: everybody just puts in 20$ at the start of each week.
Tangent complaint: I only hate the bus system due it's silly route layouts. It's like they stopped making new ones back in 1970s when Omaha was like 6 miles across, and not the 25~ or so it is today. Like, five buses will go down the same street but one of the major streets doesn't have a single bus that comes down it regularly! WTF.
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
So rich people (irregardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
What than and moniker said, and also because they can afford to.
Posts
I think the problems you highlight are typical of the way transport policies seem to be introduced. It's always carrot or stick, but never both. Increased fuel tax will hit the poor hardest and so is pointless unless there is government investment and subsidy of public transport.
I used to work about 5-6 miles from my house and it took me 30 minutes to drive there. On the bus it would take about 90 minutes because the bus routes are set up to go to the city centre and then out again as opposed to transport around the city - the place I worked was a big office and easily justified a bus service.
I now work 30 miles from my house and it only takes me 45 minutes to get there because it's away from the city.
So this is all just an elaborate Robin Hood plan? A punishment tax for anyone who, by the nature of their job or family situation, can't work within the constraints of public transportation or walking distance from home? With the proceeds going towards evening out the earned income of the populous? That's rich.
Yes and no. If the property value rises then the cost of living in a building will go up, however a new development will cost more to live in due to its recent construction costs than an old building even if it was recently modernized/remodelled/brought up to code/made less cancerific. The cost of your rent/condo is dependent on both of those factors. The age of the building does come into play, not just the property tax.
Urban areas have stricter building codes which are generally more enforced than outside. Maybe there'd be less home association restrictions, but don't get me started on those assholes. A small suburb is likely to default to the state's choice which would be the latest version of IBC. Cities have their own special codes which are tacked on top of IBC and lead to better construction as a requirement. Also, taller buildings require better structural integrity and have more loads applied to them due solely to the increased surface area. If you mean to say that square footage wise it may be smaller, that is probable, but entirely dependent on where you want to live moreso than how much you want to spend. Well, the overlap of those two things, more accurately.
Crime rates are on the decline, and if you are moving into an area with a vibrant street life you wind up being more safe than if you are living alone on a lot. The simple fact that you are buying the place and living there increases the level of street traffic by virtue of you being there which enhances security. If you decide to use public transit or act as a pedestrian rather than simply walking to your car and driving the security is increased that much more.
I don't see how that gels with the housing being unaffordable. Unless you consider a few hundred grand to be unaffordable and we're actually supposed to be talking about low income housing.
Renovations are cheaper than new construction, but new construction attracts people away from their current pricey high rise to the newest and bestest in order to make a statement. That opens up older buildings that they were in for rent/coop which need nothing but a potential renovation to be just as attractive, but less expensive, than the new tower. It's cyclical. Plus there are plenty of lowrise townhome-esque buildings which could be replaced (again, piecemeal) with mid-rise structures that would double or triple the density without much disruption. Both in local property taxes as well as in the urban fabric of the area. When done right it enhances everything in the area and acts as a slow upward spiral.
But my main point in that post was that if land is more expensive, which is likely is in a non-crime infested urban area, that those costs have to be offset or passed forward to the homebuyer somehow. A common thing I have seen is housing developments where houses are right on top of each other, but that again is lower quality because there is the sacrifice of privacy and squarefootage.
But this is somewhat tangential to my main point. Which is that with draconian taxing the demand for this sort of housing would outstrip the supply of it. The cost would go up and those costs would have to be accounted for somewhere along the line, be it less desirable housing, forclosures (and possible homelessness), or whatever. And on a short timeframe the market will be much less elastic, so it will be difficult for homebuilders and citizens to adapt.
But on a long timeframe people will still be forced to adapt but will have greater capabilities to do so.
They never come out less expensive whenthey renovate becasue there's so little room the property is worth a ton. big part of NYC's issue is the restrcitive building codes(it's very hard to build a high rise in a residential area) In NYC and most high rise cities the current trend is
Middle Class neighborhood ---> Few big constructions/renovations into high class condos ----> "hot neighborhood" ---> skyrockting rents ---> high class neighborhood
Was he living in Seattle's equivalent to a brownstone? Also, there's a lot more options available in cities to be your home than literal houses. And at all price ranges. My sister's college bungalow in Milwaukee was a shithole in comparison to the apartment she got across town after graduation. She lost a roomate, gained effective square footage thanks to the layout, and just about broke even with cost. It was just further away from campus and the surrounding blocks weren't owned by the same slumlord. In fact, the building across from her was 3 years old and its rent for one month was what she paid all year.
Where are you living that you're so afraid of rampant crime thriving in the nearby city? I mean, yeah there's crime. There's crime in suburbia. It generally doesn't get as much attention since it's more spread out and who really gives a fuck anyway, but cities are safe. You aren't going to be immediately mugged and shot after settling in.
Also, you are apparently looking at shittily designed housing or are restricting yourself to owning everything from the dirt to the shingles and aren't willing to entertain the idea of living anywhere else.
It all depends on how it happens. Massive, concentrated gentrification promotes slum development. Federated gentrification does not.
That's because the entire neighborhood is being gentrified rather than 1 or 2 buildings inside of it.
No, that would just be a way to mitigate the damage done to those who are hurt most by this. If you pay the poor back as much as they spend in extra gas, they're nowhere. But now they have a much larger marginal incentive to conserve gas than they previously did. Say they spend $600 a year on gas, and it gets bumped to $1000 a year by the new gas tax. They get $400 more in EITC. If they can cut their gas expenditures in half, now, that's $500 they get, versus the $300 they would have gotten under the old system. This creates an incentive for conservation for everyone, but most especially for the poor.
The poor already conserve gas because we can't afford to do anything else. We don't need incentives, we need affordable alternative options.
There's a passanger rail system that runs to Flagstaff... I guess they just figured people would ride their horses south. It's a good question though, and I can personally attest to Phoenix having some of the worst Urban sprawl I've ever seen. They are just starting to build a mono system... but it doesn't seem that people are too excited about it.
Nothing ever rewards people for being poor. The fact that you are poor outweighs any percieved benefit. A policy may relieve the poor but it never rewards us.
Also, people who have computers, internet connections and enough disposable time to post on internet forums considering themselves "poor" is pretty weird to me. Just saying.
No, our tax system screws over the poor and forces them to subsidize the middle-upper class. Even moreso with all the loopholes that only rich people can afford to exploit. A negative income tax could be construed to 'reward' the poor, but that's about it.
Agreed. I just don't want a real effort to curb our dependence on fossil fuels to degenerate into another exercise in class warfare. They are 2 pretty distinctly different issues in my mind.
Only if the price of public transport is simultaneously reduced. If public transport was previously unaffordable/impractical then making gas more expensive just means that public and private transport both become unaffordable/impractical.
It is just gone midnight here. I leave for work at 7ish in the morning and get back around 6ish in the evening. Is that a large amount of disposable time?
Progressive tax systems? Not getting raped =/= being rewared.
Kinda splitting hairs I think, there are plenty of poor people getting a fat EIC check just about this time of the year. I consider that to be a reward. I can see why you might not think so.
Any policy that does not take into account the wage disparity will inevitably be doomed to failure.
Reward implies incentive. There is no incentive to be poor.
Either you are simply missing my point or are being obtuse. It has nothing to do with being afraid of crime, it's just that bad neighborhoods will have lower property values. And, surprise surprise, there are some bad neighborhoods in cities, and those places are likely to have the most inexpensive housing. You seem to be ignoring the reality that there are some (NOT ALL) bad neighborhoods, and that if you want to find comparably priced housing in a city compared to a rural area you will have to make sacrifices, be it less space or bad surroundings. This isn't rocket surgery.
As for the gas tax, a big issue is that an excise tax on petroleum will be a regressive tax. So it is going to be the hardest on those towards the lowest end of the spectrum. Doubly so if those people cannot afford otherwise to live near where they work. You could probably shift the maximum screwover point upwards with subsidies and whatnot, but then it will just hit hardest somewhere in the lower middle class range.
That can probably be dealt with. The main concern would be the increased crush of ridership in public transit systems unless it was prepared for. The added fares wouldn't likely supplant the added cost of upkeep and expansion that would be needed. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is a time consuming, expensive, risky gamble. It also has some catch 22's thrown in for good measure.
So rich people (regardless of actual fuel consumption by said individuals) deserve to bear the brunt of the cost of conversion to an alternate energy source more than poor people? How so?
The most rural areas, yes. Suburbs, no. Rural areas just outside the grey belt, no.
You seem to be missing the point of how the upward spiral works. Crime is correlated with street activity (excepting pick pockets, they're everywhere). The more people and more lively the street the less likely a crime is to occur. When you have more people moving into an area it increases the street activity and local capital (especially if it leads to banks no longer blacklisting 'slums') which will lead to a decrease in the crime rate.
This is why it needs government investment and capped fares combined with taxation.
Although that may be a bit too "socialist" for Americe.
Because they benefit the most from a smoothly functioning society which this is intended to continue for a long term.
Also, irregardless is not a word.
Over here it is (all prices for the metropolitan area (whole vienna), those are the new prices valid from the first of June, the first price hike in 5 years, 10% + on average):
1 hour : €1,7
unlimited travel
- between 8:00 a.m and 8:00 p.m : €4,60
- 24 hours : €5,70
- 72 hours : €13,60
- 8 days (basically 8 tickets for 24 hours each) : €27,20
- 1 week (Monday till Sunday) : €14
- 1 month : €49,50
- 1 year : €458
No rebates are included in this (for example, kids under 6 travel free, so do kids below the age of 15 on sundays and in the summer, you also get discounts for students, elderly, there are talks about making public transport free for homeless people).
Now, I read here that public transport seems to be unaffordable for the poor, so what are the prices in the us?
You're missing the point. If a policy to reduce energy consumption fails to take account of wage disparity then it will punish the poor more than the rich.
No, it's too much of a gamble for transportation departments. Just because you build it, people won't necessarily come. Plus you have to maintain it afterwards even if it's a failed system, at least long enough to regain some of the money sunk into the system. Also, also, the long term damage that can be caused by 'fixing' problems with existing systems. It may be more efficient or effective in the end, but could have driven a large percentage of its riders away in the process and will fail to get them back for years and years. On top of the dozens of equally viable solutions that need to be filtered through in order to get one with public approval (as if design by committee was too easy) and so forth and so on. Too much risk, too much hassle, too little reward in some of the best of circumstances.
it's a 1.25$ to ride the bus in Omaha, .05$ to get a transfer if you need to go a really long way.
We don't have any other form of mass transit (street cars died out a long time ago, the water table is too high for a subway, and the only trains that go through are Amtrak), so technically they could push the prices if they wanted to.
It costs me $1.30 to go across town on a bus, 7$ on a cab, or about 2$ worth of gas.
Howeve, gas prices don't affect me and the people I know too much because we do the same thing since I can remember: everybody just puts in 20$ at the start of each week.
Tangent complaint: I only hate the bus system due it's silly route layouts. It's like they stopped making new ones back in 1970s when Omaha was like 6 miles across, and not the 25~ or so it is today. Like, five buses will go down the same street but one of the major streets doesn't have a single bus that comes down it regularly! WTF.