Using motorist-related fees, for non-motorist-related needs seems very disingenuous. We don't elect councilmembers to make value judgements for us. If they want to fund more good causes such as Housing First which is without doubt a worthy program, than that should be laid out in the budget and funded accordingly. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is wrong. Constituents appreciate transparancy and being "up front" and don't like "shell games".

by Lance on Dec 5, 2008 2:18 pm • link • report

Lance: Couldn't we say that about any funding mechanism for these housing programs, other than making the homeless pay for it themselves? Why is using real estate transfer tax for non-real estate purposes not equally disingenuous? What about using capital gains tax for non-stock purposes? Those taxes were the main sources of income that dropped. Is using that revenue for these programs a 'shell game'?

by David Alpert on Dec 5, 2008 4:34 pm • link • report

David, what I meant was that if we are going to fund worthy programs such as Housing First, let's put it in the budget that gets published and commented on and give full transparency to what is being spent and where it is being spent. To increase the parking fees just so that you can then later slide to another use where you have publically reduced the funding is disingenuous. It gives the Councilmember the ability to make value judgements absent the public scrutiny which the process is set up to ensure.

Additionally, user taxes such as motorvehicle related taxes are supposed to be directed to the benefit of those uses. (They're not like general taxes such as income taxes which are come with less restrictions since they aren't use-specific). You can make a case that revenue generated from meters can be used in another transportation related areas such as funding tramway construction, but I think it's really a stretch saying it can be used to provide homes for the homeless. It's important to remember that taxes related to something like transportation are quasi-user fees ... and NOT general tax revenue like an income tax.

The bottom line is that if these boundaries aren't respected, then we, the voters, lose control over what taxes are raised and how they are spent since the politicians start to see them all as fungible and disposable to their own political needs vs. actual needs as expressed by constituents in the normal budgeting and allocation process.

by Lance on Dec 5, 2008 5:08 pm • link • report

When is DC going to abolish those antique parking meters where you have to buy a hot dog at a stand to get them to change enough quarters for you to insert? Years ago we had quarter-peep porn stores on every block where you could easily go in and get as many quarters as you wanted since they assumed you were a customer. Who carries that many quarters?

Many many years ago when I lived in Germany and the Netherlands they already had the machines on each block where you insert your credit card or cash to get a printed ticket for your windshield. Hell, even Baltimore has mostly those now. I understand parking contracts, including meter contracts have traditionally been a source of financial kickbacks to local politicians, but couldn't they graft even more if it's on our plastic?

by Tom on Dec 5, 2008 9:48 pm • link • report

what I meant was that if we are going to fund worthy programs such as Housing First, let's put it in the budget that gets published and commented on and give full transparency to what is being spent and where it is being spent.

It's my understanding that's what happened; Housing First had a line in the District's current budget, approved by the Mayor and the Council, laying out how much was to be spent on it and where the money was coming from. However, the funding sources that were earmarked for Housing First were among those that came in under projections, so Graham is proposing to create a new revenue stream and add it to Housing First so that the District will be able to spend as much as they'd previously agreed to spend. The only difference between this proposal and the normal budgeting process is the time of year.

by cminus on Dec 7, 2008 9:23 pm • link • report

I'm not sure how much money can be saved by not widening the 11th Street Bridges. As I understand it, those bridges have to come down soon - and new bridges go up in their place. Not to say there won't be some savings in building a smaller bridge, just that it won't be a total savings.

by David on Dec 12, 2008 11:17 am • link • report

There's some other fringe benefits to the 11th St Bridge project too:

- A "local street" 11th St bridge, one which could be made streetcar-ready if streetcars aren't incorporated into it outright.

- Pulls traffic off of the end of the SE Freeway and Pennsylvania Ave on the Sousa Bridge, allowing those two to be rebuilt to better fit the area, as well as the Anacostia/Pennsylvania interchange.

- Might pull enough traffic off of New York Ave to where the proposal to close part of the 395 Tunnel at New York Ave can be done without creating an even bigger mess than the one that already exists.

by Froggie on Dec 12, 2008 11:31 am • link • report

That's interesting. David A. would you support the new 11th Street bridge - with transit and better bike connections - if it came with a closed 395 tunnel?

by David C on Dec 12, 2008 4:32 pm • link • report