Comments on House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Kyle W

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:21:35 EDT

@Charlie

I would guesstimate that somewhere around 30% of the population lives withing 20 miles or so of another state.

Big cities that fall within that number: Charlotte, Tallahassee, Chattanooga, Mobile AL, Portland OR, Spokane WA, Fargo ND, Minneapolis MN, Toledo OH, Kansas City MO, St Louis, Norfolk VA, Washington DC, Northern Virginia, MoCo and PG County, New York Metro area, Pittsburgh PA.

That is just a small sample, and encompasses quite a few people. Also, I disagree that there is a limit. NJ seems quite happy with its 10.5c, while other states, with no federal help would need to be at .50c or well higher.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:02:06 EDT

The Constitution does not ban states giving money to localities, nor does it ban the federal government giving money to localities.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:58:34 EDT

@DaveAlpert; we have a principled reason -- it is called the constitution. I see your argument, but you're making an appeal based on needs, not the law or the last 200 years of history. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Now, to go back to the main point -- should the federal goverment have the ability to direct money to a local jurisdiction -- and bypass the states? I'd agree with you on that but rather than worrying which of 5 programs bike money fall under highway money push for decidated bike funding.

@KyleW; sure on a state border I'd agree with you there is some arbitrtge. However, I don't think people in Houston or LA will drive one state over to save gas. And there are limits on how much you can cut gas taxes, even on a state level. gas taxes are not pigovan, they are hypothecated.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:48:18 EDT

charlie: But the federal government has power too. Why not say, "As much as you don't like it, the federal government has power to control transportation priorities for the entire nation?"

Some people are suggesting moving more power from the feds to the states. I am suggesting moving more power to the localities. It's not consistent to argue that we can't move power to the localities because "that's the way the law is" but then suggest changing the law to move more power to the states.

Either there's some principled reason the states are the right level, or else we shouldn't put the power at that level.

Comment by Fitz

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:47:14 EDT

So you think that money going from, say, Arlington to Washington and then being distributed with strings is bad, but money going from Arlington to Richmond and coming back with strings is okay because "the higher level of government is ultimately accountable"?

I'm not sure how you arrived at the first part because I didn't state that money being distributed with strings attached by the federal government was bad. I'm a little confused by the second part because AFAIK money being sent from Richmond to Arlington comes from the state's entire pool of tax revenue, not just tax receipts that came from Arlington.

I think the Founders meant to keep decisions fairly local, and at the time, the states were the right-sized unit of government. Now, in most cities, the city or metro region is.

I think they meant for local decisions to be funded locally as well. Hence the reasoning behind eliminating the federal gas tax.

Comment by Kyle W

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:45:48 EDT

@Charlie

I don't see how I am overstating it. I think it is reasonable to say that in this metro area, a huge impediment to DC or MD raising the gas tax to fund infrastructure, is a knowledge that Virginia would not do the same. If gas was 50c or 75c or $1.00 cheaper in VA, that would be hugely detrimental to sales in Maryland and DC, and would just result in more gas being purchased in VA. That sounds like a race to the bottom.

I have seen no indication whatsoever that says that the no new tax buffoons would capitulate, even in the face of an elimination of ALL federal gas tax, and federal subsidies for road funding (which won't happen). Please explain how I am overstating.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:33:52 EDT

@DaveAlpert; well, there is a reason we call this the "united states" not the "united cities". As much as you don't like it, states have power and authorites that cities don't have.

@KyleW; states can do that now because they know they are getting a huge chunk of federal funding. I think you are overstating the race of the bottom. It isn't about poaching, it is about saying an entire region of the county should be neglected. That is the real purpose of federal funding -- money transfers to faciliate development. We've built a great road system but the challenge is finding better ways to transport people and pay for what we have.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:01:29 EDT

Fitz: So you think that money going from, say, Arlington to Washington and then being distributed with strings is bad, but money going from Arlington to Richmond and coming back with strings is okay because "the higher level of government is ultimately accountable"?

Why?

In this particular case, Richmond is even farther away from Arlington than Washington. But even if it's money from LA to Sacramento versus LA to Washington, why is it inappropriate for the money to go to LA but fine for it to go to Sacramento?

LA is now bigger than all states and even the entire nation was when the Constitution was written. I think the Founders meant to keep decisions fairly local, and at the time, the states were the right-sized unit of government. Now, in most cities, the city or metro region is.

Comment by Fitz

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:51:55 EDT

A state government hundreds of miles from a town shouldn't make the decisions for that town any more than the feds should.

Generally speaking, if a town is given money by a state government then it's not only reasonable that it comes with conditions but prudent and part of due diligence because the higher level of government is ultimately accountable for those funds. State lawmakers have to answer to constituents in their jurisdictions too. And yes, this can lead to petty and ideological turf wars, but I don't think that precludes attaching given conditions to funding.

Comment by Kyle W

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:38:15 EDT

Reducing infrastructure funding to make states take a greater share is a huge mistake. See New Jersey and its riduculous stubbornness to raise its gas tax of only 10.5c. It just results in a race to the bottom. Say Pennsylvania decides it needs to raise its tax to .75c to appropriately fund its infrastructure. All of a sudden, people are driving to New Jersey with truck beds full of gas tanks to fill up on the much cheaper gas.

Much like we currently see with Virginias practically non-existent ciggarette tax. Much like we are seeing with states "creating jobs" by stealing them from other states with the promise of long tax holidays etc. States competing with each other just results in a race to the bottom, which in the end doesn't help anyone (except for shareholders/CEOs) which I guess is what the GOP is trying to do.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:22:19 EDT

I think the issue is that there is so much federal money that every state and local DOT wants to spend that. It would be fairly fiscally irresponsible otherwise; why spend your own money when you can get money from elsewhere?

I think reducing the federal gas tax and letting states keep more money is a good idea, but why stop with states? Why shouldn't the states then give some of the money to localities for local projects? Let the cities and towns decide what they want to do inside their boundaries.

We have interstates and major state highways (not every random road that's a "state highway") for significant long-distance travel. A state government hundreds of miles from a town shouldn't make the decisions for that town any more than the feds should.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:06:00 EDT

yes, reading between the lines I came to the same conclusion.

States acting as barriers to local funding has a long history. My preferred solution is kill the federal gas tax (or reduce it to something like 2 cents) and makes the states tax gas at a higher rate and spend it. The block grants going to states are part of the problem, not the solution.

There is a logical problem as wel. Bike-advocates like to cite the low cost, but it is so low cost why do the federal grants exist as precursors?

If I put on my foundation funding goggles, federal funding for CABI as a test concept makes a lot of sense. Federal funding for Chicago or NYC? If Bloomberg thinks it is great, he can find the money in NYC.

Comment by Fitz

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:25:51 EDT

We've heard from mayors and local elected officials across the country that they want funding for these projects.

That line made me laugh. Of course every mayor and local official wants these types of funding. What local official doesn't love developing projects for their jurisdiction without using their jurisdictions tax revenue to pay for it.