RE: Parking. It sounds like someone around here has been reading Don Shoup.

by kenf on Jul 7, 2008 6:54 am  

Isn't the District complaining about too many commuters like Florida complaining about too many tourists?

by 10lbsofawesome on Jul 7, 2008 9:08 am  

Commuters to DC don't pay any income tax to the city where their employer is located. DC is the only city in the nation where this is prohibited by congress. This means communters use all the resources of the city; fire department, police, water, road maintainenece, etc., without contributing to the funding for those services, including medicaid for the children whose asthma is exacerbated by air pollution. Half a million cars drive into DC every workday. People who drive into the city are the greatest burden. The prohibition is enforced by out-of-state members of congress. The same members of congress who prohibited DC from using our own money -tax funds and private funds- for a needle exchange program to prevent HIV for 15 years. That prohibition was lifted just a few months ago following a well publicized CDC study detailing the excessive rate of HIV in DC compared to every other US city/state. Maybe after a few thousand more kids die from asthma congress will get rid of the free parking. Or maybe not. Cars and the "right" to drive is more important than human lives.

by Bianchi on Jul 7, 2008 9:29 am  

I agree that the article was shabby, at best. If your article has a lot of phrases like "It's long been suspected", it shouldn't get by a good editor. Of course, in this case I imagine the editor is a car-commuter him/herself, so this junk probably seemed self-evidently true.

Also, it raised the idea of a thwarted commuter tax, yet didn't provide the context that any other city in the nation could levy such a tax if they so chose. It made it sound like the District is over-reaching by asking for a commuter-tax. So the idea that the District is using other means to get that money is assumed by the article to be equally over-reaching.

It all comes down to the fact that the District has to decide how to balance it's need to be easily accessible for customers and workers. Too frequently you hear incredibly self-serving arguments from outsiders who conveniently conclude that it's in the District's best interests to make their choice to drive easier.

The shabbiness aside, I actually enjoyed reading the article because at no point did it quote a DC representative denying the emphasis on shifting the balance away from drivers. The article may have been a vehicle (ha!) of Suburban (tm) bitching, but the proper response to that is "so what?"

by Reid on Jul 7, 2008 9:46 am  

well said, Bianchi. I don't live in DC, but I don't find it unreasonable for DC leaders to want to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents. In fact, it's better for everyone if DC is a better place to live, regardless of whether you live there or not. There is more to the District than just roads for commuting to offices. Even though I live just outside the District, I love to visit my friends who live there, or go shopping, or have a nice night out. If it's all just big commuter roads, it's not possible to have these other activities. A walkable urban fabric is necessary for a lively city. This journalist from the Post clearly does not get that point, nor does he seem to care.

by Cavan on Jul 7, 2008 9:53 am  

Reid,

I am going to bang a drum here, but while DDOT is talking about shifting the focus away from cars and towards pedestrians/bikes etc, the fact of the matter is when given opportunities on a silver platter to do so, DDOT has chosen the cars over pedestrians.

Until this changes, I believe this is all only lip service.

by Andrew on Jul 7, 2008 10:22 am  

Ditto what Reid says: the response of DC officials to complaints from suburban commuters should always be "so what?" The suburban commuters don't pay taxes and don't vote in the District. That's politics 101. That said, what I found most amazing about the article, for which shabby is way too kind an adjective, is that I think the exact opposite: despite some improvements, DDOT still focuses way too much on cars and suburban commuters. I guess it all depends on your perspective.

by rg on Jul 7, 2008 10:30 am  

I was surprised by this article, given how much reporting the Post has done in the past on transit and pedestrian safety improvements in the suburban context. It was pretty funny how the author wrote the piece with the dead-on assumption that if it's harder to drive a car into an area, then people will not go there. The last power structure operating with that logic brought us the plan for the inner beltway and the Three Sisters Bridge.

by mfs on Jul 7, 2008 10:33 am  

Unfortunately, other cities could not levy commuter taxes either. I don't know about the laws in all states, but New York City, one of the few cities nationwide with its own income tax, is prohibited by New York state law from having a commuter tax. It used to, until George Pataki won the governorship partly by promising to repeal it.

District residents rightly complain about the yoke of Congressional meddling and our lack of representation, and DC residents absolutely should have the vote. Nevertheless, even having considerable representation doesn't mean legislative bodies dominated by suburban representatives won't screw the city. The NY state legislature recently forbid NYC from installing cameras on new express buses to catch bus-lane violators, thanks to New York's version of Tom Coburn, Rochester Democrat David Gantt. This, despite considerable numbers of NYC-based legislators and a House Speaker from Lower Manhattan (who also frequently votes against city interests).

by David Alpert on Jul 7, 2008 11:00 am  

@ Bianchi

I was wondering what your personal situation is in regards to transportation needs and options. I don't mean to get personal, but I'm sensing real passion in your postings (and that's of course a good thing), and was just wondering if in your daily life you have the option of mass transit to work (or you don't) and if you own or car (and would rather not) or don't own a car (and would like to, but can't for any number of reasons.) You just seem very passionate in wanting the status quo to change .

by Lance on Jul 7, 2008 11:03 am  

GGW - is this:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1004

connected with this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/07/07/story2.html

?

by tig on Jul 7, 2008 11:06 am  

"Commuters to DC don't pay any income tax to the city where their employer is located. DC is the only city in the nation where this is prohibited by congress. This means communters use all the resources of the city; fire department, police, water, road maintainenece, etc., without contributing to the funding for those services, including medicaid for the children whose asthma is exacerbated by air pollution. Half a million cars drive into DC every workday. People who drive into the city are the greatest burden."

But people who work in or visit the District do pay a sales tax "with five different rates. This rate structure is utilized, in part, to take advantage of the district's special status as a tourist center and to increase the contribution of nonresidents working in the city. The current sales tax rates are:

* 5.75 percent for tangible personal property.

* 9 percent for alcohol sold for off-premises consumption.

* 10 percent for restaurant meals, take-out food, rental cars and telephone calling cards.

* 12 percent for commercial parking .

* 14.5 percent for hotel and motel rooms." From Bankrate.com, http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_DC.asp.

Commuters who work in commercial real property also finance real property taxes, which are $1.00 per square foot higher than residential rates:

"Class Tax Rate per $100 Description

1 $0.85 Residential real property, including multifamily

2 $1.85 Commercial and industrial real property, including hotels and motels" From DC Office of Tax and Revenue, http://otr.cfo.dc.gov/otr/cwp/view,a,1330,q,594394.asp.

Businesses that are in the District, which likely employ a lot of commuters, pay corporate franchise taxes and unincorporated business franchise taxes of 9.975% of taxable income, which is higher than the highest personal tax rate of 8.5% for individuals. From DC Office of the Chief Financial Officer, http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/cwp/view,a,1324,q,610984.asp.

There are several other related taxes on business in DC, which, again, likely employ commuters. From DC Office of the Chief Financial Officer, http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/cwp/view,a,1324,q,612636.asp.

Isn't a significant problem the issue of whether, as I understand (based on the listing as "exempt" in the following chart), the federal government may not pay real estate taxes, as it appears to have $51.5 million in real estate in DC? From DC Office of the Chief Financial Officer, http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/06taxfacts-finalb.pdf.

by 10lbs on Jul 7, 2008 11:18 am  

I too was a bit shocked by the slant of Weiss' story. As a journalist, I was really flabbergasted by his blatant angle (hello...who cares what Jim Moran thinks when it comes to local driving issues?!). The angle that humors me/angers me most is the increase in fines for failure to yeild to a pedestrian....when the District finally increases it to $500, it will mirror the infractions agains drivers in all the surrounding jurisdictions as well.

by Adams Morgan on Jul 7, 2008 11:54 am  

The WP post is flawed for not providing a breakdown for the various components of these policies. One can be in favor of making it easier to be a pedestrian, and be opposed to things that will make it more difficult to be a pedestrian around Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York Avenues, as the shortsighted parochialism proposal to truncate I-395.

by Douglas A Willinger on Jul 7, 2008 11:54 am  

@ 10lbs

yes, the biggest issue is that the feds don't pay property tax ... the same holds true for the many non-profits whose property is also tax exempt. We have a big hole in our tax base that can't be made up easily.

That said, the other side of the coin is that no other state/city benefits as directly from federal government spending and subsidies or outright payments as DC does. By that I mean (1) if all the agencies that operate here (or near here) moved away one day, we'd go the way of the ghost towns of the old west over night and (2) we get special treatment dollarwise such as "interstate funding" being spent on roads and bridges (and I think Metro), with DC only having to come up with something like 20% matching funds (where states have to come up with something like 50% or perhaps even more), our entire judiciary costs being paid for (and run) by the feds (including prison costs), and (3)the spin off benefits of having institutions such as the Smithsonian (free entry) in our city bringing in millions and millions of tourists who pay hotel and restaurant taxes and just plain old bring in "business" for us, as well as the spin off of having dozens of different policy forces working along side our MPD.

Of course, we also have unreimbursed costs that come with being the nation's capital such as having to pay policing costs for demonstrations, presidential and other VIP motorcades, paying the bulk of the presidential inaugurations costs, having to put up with foreign nation chanceries that can set up shop in a residentially zoned area almost as will (i.e., you wake up one morning and the family next door to you has moved out and there's a foreign government's Visa issue dept. operating out of the house.) The list goes on and on.

In the end, we have a special relationship with the federal government that doesn't lend itself to comparisions with states or cities anywhere else in the nation. Yeah, I agree we should have voting rights (and more importantly Congressional representation with voting rights) like all other Americans, but I don't think it can be as simple as saying Maryland gets this and we should too, or this is how it is in New York and should be the same way there. Our relationship with the feds is totally unique, and calls for unique solutions to our problems ... in the same way we have unique opportunities and benefits due to our unique relationship.

by Lance on Jul 7, 2008 12:12 pm  

"Unfortunately, other cities could not levy commuter taxes either."

While it's true that NY state repealed NYC's tax (a fact I was not actually aware of) it does not mean that NYC, or any other city, is in the same boat as DC. Any prohibition of a commuter tax to a non-DC city is based on state legislation. While I agree that DC is blessed by not having to deal with a state legislature, nonetheless, it is far worse to deal with Congress than a state legislature, if not simply because we have no representation in Congress, whereas cities like NYC are well represented (if not in quality, at least in quantity) in their state legislatures.

Personally, I am abivilant on the Commuter Tax. I agree with 10lbs that vistors to DC already pay a good amount of taxes. So long as Congress moves forward to reinstate the annual payment to the District, I'd be happy without the commuter tax.

That said, I'm perfectly fine with punishingly high fines for car-related vices. Hey, so long as Virginia treats just about anything as a lawyer-fee-requiring Reckless Driving charge, I say they have no place to complain.

by Reid on Jul 7, 2008 12:30 pm  

tig: The two are about the same area, I-395, and its detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I don't think the proposed closing is a direct response to that particular development in the project, if that's what you are asking.

Reid & Lance: Definitely agreed that DC is in a very special position. I was responding to those who suggested that any other city could do a commuter tax (unfortunately not true). Also, many DC people seem to feel that we are the only city that gets trodden upon by an unsympathetic higher legislature; sadly, that's also pretty common nationwide, though each case is different and DC's certainly is unique.

by David Alpert on Jul 7, 2008 12:38 pm  

I suppose you're right - it's perhaps too conspiratorially-minded to assume that the DDOT study is calculated to convert Dreyfus's newly minted air rights over I-395 into a fee-simple ownership.

It would make Dreyfus's position vastly more valuable, even as Dreyfus extricates the city government from the embarrassment of its Barry-era deal with Monts for those air rights....

by tig on Jul 7, 2008 1:08 pm  

@ Adams Morgan

"hello...who cares what Jim Moran"

We do. Since DC doesn't have voting representation in congress, we relay on congressman who are on a committee handling District affairs. These congressmen traditionally include local congressmen such as Jim Moran ... who can vote on issues.

by Lance on Jul 7, 2008 1:10 pm  

I read some of the comments from the WaPo readers to the "Drivers Feeling Shunned by D.C.". Lots of suburbanites claiming D.C. is biting the hand that feeds it.

Despite the fact I lived in the suburbs until a few months ago I couldn't disagree more. I've always felt that the suburbs benefit greatly from their proximity to the District. They contribute little back financially. Sales tax? puh-lease. That's a drop in the bucket. Nice little free ride they have. If the capital of our country had been in Philly or NYC and all the museums and govt agencies were instead in those cities what would this region be? Maybe a little more relevant than Roanoke or Raleigh?

Hopefully WMATA can get the Feds and VA to pay not only for the Silver Line but also most the cost of the separated Blue Line. District residents could get by with the existing lines. It's the extra ridership from the Silver Line and suburbs that is going to choke the core. So let's see the suburbs pay for the separated blue line. It's time they finally contributed back financially to the engine of the region.

by Cascades on Jul 7, 2008 1:30 pm  

Lance, all your questions about me are answered in earlier comments in the last month. My first comment on this post was directed at 10lbsofawesome whose first comment was, I thought, flippant and an inapropriate comparison. In his/her 2nd comment s/he seems to focus on toursits to DC which is a different topic than car-communters to DC. No one is complaining about toursists. Besides, all of those taxes/fees listed are applicable to DC residents as well as visitors. It is easy for me to imagine many car-commuters to DC never spending a penny while in the city. They get free parking from their employer and bring their lunch. That it's a US Congressional Committee deciding our fate as opposed to a State legislature in which we may have representation seems different to me, although to NYCer's it may not feel different. I have had the experience several times in my life of living in one town and working in another and paying a tax to the town of my employer as well as to the town of my home, although there are exemptions, etc. Regarding my passion for better transit, some of it is fueled by the fact that I lived for several years in a city/region the same size as Greater Washington that 20 years ago had a top-notch transit/biking/walking transportation system (including cars) that blew away anything available in the DC region today. I have experienced what's possible. In that place many people still owned cars and drove. It just wasn't necessary to drive to so many destinations even if that was the choice. The car isn't going away even with improved transit/biking and pedestrian safety.

by Bianchi on Jul 7, 2008 1:55 pm  

RE; Jim Moran...the bigger point is that the District shouldn't be taking into consideration idle threats made by a questionable Norther Virginia Congressman when it comes to the health and safety of the residents of the District of Columbia...

by Adams Morgan on Jul 7, 2008 2:14 pm  

@ Bianchi, I'm curious as to which city you lived in that you feel had a better "transit/biking/walking transportation system"? As far as American cities this size and up go, I'm having a hard time of thinking of one with better biking trails than DC's ... I mean it even beats SF which is hard to do. Though I can see where DC would come in 2nd to walking to NYC ... but probably no other city. Transit and Roads ... ? Yeah, not the best ... we could use a real urban metro instead of a commuter line that doubles as an urban subway ... And we definitely need more freeways such as the often discussed 'outer beltway' that's been promised for years. - though I suspect you won't agree with that last wish of mine. ;)

by Lance on Jul 7, 2008 2:32 pm  

Are we also for closing many of the superfluous roads that bisect a national park? (I am!)

by Cassandra on Jul 7, 2008 3:11 pm  

Cassandra asked:

"Are we also for closing many of the superfluous roads that bisect a national park?"

If you're referring to Rock Creek, I wouldn't call it superfluous. It's a vital part of our road network. Additionally, provided the speed is kept slow (as it is)why shouldn't a commuter be equally entitled to a refreshing morning and evening drive through the park, as is a recreational biker or a recreational hiker? When I lived in the MD 'burbs and had neither the time nor the money to bike or hike that park, I know driving through it to and from work was a very enjoyable experience ... even if it did take a little longer to do my commute. Our parks are for eveyone, not only those with leisure time, bikes, etc.

by Lance on Jul 7, 2008 3:33 pm  

Lance, I wasn't referring to a US city although many years ago I found car-free living in Chicago easier than in DC. When we aspire to greatness there is no reason to limit ourselves to examples found in the US. The best examples for both what's good and what's bad are found internationally. I'm referring to transportation systems. If our nation's capitol comes up less than first rate in a comparison to other nations' capitols it is because of choices made/not made, not ability. Ensuring visitors (tourists) to the nation's capitol aren't mowed down by car-commuters from Damascus and Reston as they attempt to cross a street is the right direction for achieving "greaterness".

by Bianchi on Jul 7, 2008 3:53 pm  

Re: commuters having to pay taxes: if they work in a federal gov't owned building, not only do they get free parking, but they don't have to pay sales tax on any meals bought in those buildings. Neither do tourists have to pay any sales tax on meals and gifts/items bought at Smithsonian museums.

The GAO, a pretty reliable agency, did a report on DC's needs and said that the federal government is not ponying up as it should to aid the District in funding infrastructure -- especially considering that 40 percent of property can't be taxed.

by lou on Jul 7, 2008 3:59 pm  

What is perhaps most startling to me is article commenter RedskinsFan1 who states that "driving is a God-given right". I learned at a very young age that it's not a right, it's a privilege. It is a privilege to drive on through routes in the city, and that privilege is being abused by irresponsible commuting, speeding, and frivolous driving.

Granted I think the Transit in DC is vastly underfunded, but DC can't annex its suburbs like they do out West. DC hasn't levied a single toll to its commuters, and we ought to be grateful for that. I'm not in favor of closing I-395 without providing a viable alternative (i.e. a bridge connecting the SE Fwy dead end to 295), but as far as regular roads are concerned, the city should have every right to treat them like city streets and not commuter traffic gutters.

by Dave Murphy on Jul 8, 2008 2:24 am  

The federal government offers a transit subsidy for its employees. I don't know about parking (I've never considered driving to work), but I don't think it's free at the agency I work for.

by PJ on Jul 8, 2008 3:24 pm  

lou: A minor correction -- sales are tax-free in Federal buildings only if the seller is a Federal instrumentality. I'd expect that most agencies have outsourced their cafeterias, which makes them taxable (as the seller is now Eurest, Aramark, etc.).

by Brad Ackerman on Jul 8, 2008 6:10 pm  

I work at a government facility in the suburbs, and I get free parking. That's primarily because there's incredibly poor transit options to get me the six miles from Laurel to Fort Meade. But hey, let's move 5,000 more jobs out there.

by Dave Murphy on Jul 10, 2008 12:45 am  

You know, in most parts of the country, I can entirely understand the hesitancy to back pedestrian-friendly downtowns, as those downtowns have been either gutted or never existed in the first place. As a former resident of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Atlanta, there is no center. It is truly like living in a section of a donut without a hole (especially in Atlanta.)

However, DC does have a center. It is viable, beautiful and walkable. i'm amazed that MORE people choose to live in the soul-free cul-du-sac world then the highly urban (and highly beautiful) District.

Besides...suburbanites have plenty. Massive highways, gates and golf...Wal-Mart and more. Is it really that bad to (a) pay more to park or (b) hop on the 2nd most used (and very clean) METRO?

by Aaron on Jul 10, 2008 2:36 pm  

"However, DC does have a center. It is viable, beautiful and walkable. i'm amazed that MORE people choose to live in the soul-free cul-du-sac world then the highly urban (and highly beautiful) District."

___________________________________________________________

Well, for obvious reasons, not every can or wants to live in DC. If suburban life is not for you, then fine. Don't judge or criticize someone else's choice for doing so.

by Ted on Jul 16, 2008 4:25 pm