Report a Comment

I am so swamped at work today, so I gottat cut out, but I look forward to reading your response later.

"Everybody is paying for those roads, because the people that live their provide economical activities that benefit everybody through taxation."

No. Not always. There are wide swaths of Maryland, as well as America, that receive huge amounts of money to support industries and economies that, on the whole, contribute nothing back. Tax money flows to where the votes are, not where it gets the most bang. Which is why I brought up the fact that what I proposed would never work. Politics is too intrinsic. You think Wyoming would back a usage fee? Alaska? Loudon County? I'm idealistic, not naive.

"It is inefficient to hand out infrastructure to private entities, like universities. By letting them soley handle their campuses, you lock out visitors of the campuses and other people."

Not sure what this means, but I thought you were advocating this all along. The public foots the bill for infrastructure investment while the public benefits from the jobs, taxes, etc. Would you rather a tax generating entity exist in lieu of campuses? University of Wal Mart? I am confused. Plus, the whole idea behind connectors is to link campuses to communities. Like that WVU initiative to build custom public transit pods, or the UVA one to get students into town (the drunk bus). Or PennLink, which connects not only Upenn to philly, but West Philly to Philly.

And no, 98 percent of Marylanders will not profit from the sales generated at Hagerstown (or anywhere that fits its description, I just used hagerstown as an example). How many mom and pop small businesses are in that outlet mall? Did Best Buy install a community playground? When you compare the huge sunk investment over the long term, exurban developments are a massive drain on resources. We wouldn't be awash in an unprecedented economic crisis were it not for the fact that money was speculated on building exurban mega suburbs 50 miles from anything. How do you think this country would have developed had excess infrastructure cost been permanently factored into expansion projects? We might have had speculation,

but we'd certainly have a hell of a lot less infrastructure obligations to cover. In the 21st century, the engines of economic growth in America lie in its urban and inner suburban cores. To use a Bushism: make no mistake about it.

"Mileage surcharges are useless. If you want to tax usage, do it by pollution and a gas tax increase. Europeans have done so, and are fine with it. I.e., they complain just as much about high gas prices as Americans."

Semantics. All I'm saying is change the incentive structure by making those who use it the most pay for most of it. Gas Tax, Mileage Tax, Pollution Tax, whatever you want to call it. They do different things, for sure, but all appropriately change the incentives.

This is why Cavan's post is so money; When government invests in dense and transit oriented infrastructure, diverse industries can use that and contribute to growth in a manner that, in the long term, is sustainable and profitable. Mega Projects price out the young upstart companies. Innovation is stifled. When gov't builds in anticipation of new development in far flung places, it effectively subsidizes, permanently, bad development choices.

Ok, ranting here. ttys.

by JTS on Mar 10, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report