Regarding the bike lane blocker - DDOT actually has signage explicitly allowing back-in/angle parking to block the bike lane for most of Sunday for church parking [not sure which church]. I believe the cutoff time is 2 or 3pm when it's supposed to resume to standard parallel parking and free up the bike lane, but there are almost always unticketed cars parked at an angle blocking the lane well into the late evening hours.

by ontarioroader on Jun 22, 2010 9:05 am  

RE: Bike Lane Blockers-

Just this morning I was at the Dave Thomas Circle and a Silver Cab blocked the crosswalk coming on 1st from Florida. Kudos to the DDOT employee that made him reverse & made him aware of what a crosswalk is & the $50 ticket it can carry. Admittedly, he didn't exactly equate this information in the most friendly of manners, but it was certainly appreciated nonetheless.

RE: Millionaires-

I could see some potential for them to move out of DC, given DC's tiny size & the variety of potential destinations -- rural, suburban, and urban -- outside of its boundaries but still within easy (more or less) commuting distance.

by Bossi on Jun 22, 2010 9:09 am  

As a tax accountant in Fairfax County, I would have to agree that tax considerations are just one of many considerations in locational decisions between, say, Virginia, Maryland, and DC - as Ezra Klein and his commenters already mentioned, there is so much else to consider in a move.

But where, in our specific region, taxation has a specific impact on location decisions is with those wealthy people who already have a vacation home in Florida (which has no income tax and now also no intangibles tax) and who decide to spend sufficient time in Florida and shift other indicators of residence (i.e., get a Florida driver's license and voter registration) to move their tax residence from Virginia/DC/Maryland to Florida. I have seen a number of wealthy people do exactly that.

One possible way to track this is to use the migration map that was featured a week ago. Some of the more obvious cases: (1) between Fairfax County and Polk County, FL - 38 moved from FL to VA, with average income of $43,900; 38 also moved from VA to FL, but with average income of $249,000; (2) between Fairfax County and Collier County, FL - 41 moved from FL to VA, with average income of $31,500; 51 moved from VA to FL, with average income of $171,800.

Movements between FL and DC appear to have less of a glaring income disparity.

by tax_accountant on Jun 22, 2010 9:17 am  

Can we be clear about the term wealthy?

Income taxes target high-income individuals. $250,000 is a lot of money, but in an expensive area, and with private schools (needed in DC), that income doesn't go far. Taxing high-income individuals clearly has limits before they break. Also, those people are working -- and if you're working it is harder to move.

Wealthy individuals are ones with assets. We capture some of that with real-estate taxes. We capture the rest with capital gains tax.

What DC doesn't' need is more income taxation -- already too high -- and the max rates starts too low. The low (40K?) window for the max DC rate needs to be lifted higher, and we can probablly raise the max rate a small amount.

We need more capital gain taxation. People who have money outside of their retirement accounts -- well, go for it. That 2-3 million in liquid money is being very well utilized anyway.

by charlie on Jun 22, 2010 9:35 am  

Though I'm not convinced that DC's new high-earner tax bracket will drive people away from the city, it may discourage new area residents from choosing to move to DC as opposed to VA or MD.

DC suffers from expensive land (per square foot) as it is and, if anything, we should compensate with lower, not higher, taxes if we wish to attract more new residents to the city.

by Eric F. on Jun 22, 2010 9:51 am  

The only nice thing anyone said about Tysons as it is now:
"We walk around and Tysons doesn't exist," she said.

by Ben Ross on Jun 22, 2010 9:53 am  

I've been staring aimlessly at the live tube map for a few minutes now...

by Mike on Jun 22, 2010 10:01 am  

It seems that if the Marines need a lot of space with a parking garage and big set-backs for security, a historic, urban location is not ideal. Looking at their duties (http://bit.ly/cC7gQ8), only one makes the location critical (Security forces for Camp David and the White House). The others could easily be done at a location farther out or from within the Navy Yard. Even for security, they could add barracks to Fort McHenry (by removing one of their two baseball fields).

by David C on Jun 22, 2010 10:05 am  

Re: The Community Garden - it's public land, right? So why do folks think they have some vested rights to it?

Re: Income tax migrations - Klein's article notes that NJ raised its income taxes on millionaires, and then saw an outward migration of millionaires. He glosses over that by noting that even with fewer top earners, the state still pulled in a ton of cash - but it was during economic boom times. The NJ Legislature just proposed yet another millionaires tax (amazing how there's never enough taxes to pay for the ever-increasing spending); the new governor vetoed it.

by Fritz on Jun 22, 2010 10:08 am  

@David C

My understanding is that everything is 'location critical' with regard to their proximity to the existing facilities at 8th and I. They supposedly need to remain within a 15 minute walk.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2010 10:10 am  

Thanks Alex B, I hadn't heard much about WHY this location was critical.

by David C on Jun 22, 2010 10:13 am  

The Community Garden - it's public land, right? So why do folks think they have some vested rights to it?

Because folks are the public. And these specific folks have invested time, effort and money in the land and that usually creates a sense of "ownership". Often we talk about how positive that sense of ownership is because it gets people to invest more of their time, effort and money in the land. It seems unfair to ask people to feel like owners and work hard for the park, but then tell them they aren't really owners and rip it away from them.

by David C on Jun 22, 2010 10:16 am  

Also, that Virgina Ave park is and always has been open space as per the L'Enfant plan. Building there isn't a particularly great idea for a number of reasons.

@David C - the setback requirements as a part of the anti-terrorism regulations are indeed anti-urban. From a pure setback standpoint, the best options would probably be building on the existing Annex's soccer/baseball field or within the confines of the Navy Yard.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2010 10:20 am  

@Fritz The NJ Governor's proposed plan would raise taxes for a couple on a $40,000/year income by over $1,000, and would cut taxes for people earning over $1,000,000 a year by about $12,000. He also virtually gutted the public school system (he sends his children to a $30k/year private school, and has openly stated on several occasions that he thinks others should do the same once he's dismantled the public system).

No matter how I look at that, I can't find a moral or practical justification for it.

by andrew on Jun 22, 2010 10:28 am  

@ Urban Outfitters,
Is it ironic to break up the retail facade to be more compatible with surrounding finer grained retail storefronts? is it ironic to remove you're shoes when entering a traditional household? No, it's sensitive to context and being neighborly. In NYC's case, it's probably smart retailing also as many people are turned off by the overwhelming presentation of merchandise, like me.

by Thayer-D on Jun 22, 2010 10:29 am  

@David C: How is the complaints about the community gardens being "taken" any different than the complaints from residents with no side walks about how their front lawns were "taken"? Both are issues of public space, right? There should then be no difference.

@andrew: I don't know enough about NJ budgets (other than their property taxes are sky-high). But I do remember reading that Christie focused on the previous millionaire's tax and how it led to a loss of top earners, which the Princeton study appears to confirm.

by Fritz on Jun 22, 2010 10:48 am  

@Fritz. Agreed. In both cases groups have a right to complain that they are losing something and decision makers can balance that against other needs.

by David C on Jun 22, 2010 10:55 am  

@David C,
By your logic, I guess I "own" the road my company adopted then right?

I spend time, money and effort picking up trash along a local road. I pay for landscaping. I guess its mine then huh? I guess I'll use this excuse when they go to do work to that road I don't particularly like.

I've lived in numerous places around the world and never have I met so many self obsessed "its mine" mentality people.

It's clear cut and simple as pie. They don't own the land. Its public and any free use they've gotten out of the use of the land over the years was a gift, not an entitlement.

I am amazed how people who peruse this blog can change their arguments and positions from thread to thread. This blog and its supporters are all about smart growth, high density usage, fitting more into less, efficiencies of scale and yet here we have a downtown, metro accesible URBAN location that could accomodate hundreds more people with disposable incomes to patronize the Cap Hill businesses and all of a sudden urbanism is dead?

by nookie on Jun 22, 2010 10:57 am  

Urbanism is about making it desirable for people to live in the city. Having some community gardens is part of that. There's always a balance about what's displaced when something is built. If the old thing is a parking lot or a vacant house, that's different than if it's a beloved community garden.

It also depends what's being built. The Marines are going to build more insular buildings that are fortresses keeping the rest of the city out. How does that improve life in the city? More Marines would bring more activity to the area, but so do people gardening.

If you believe this blog's community's attitude is "every taller building is always better than anything lower," you are very mistaken.

by David Alpert on Jun 22, 2010 11:03 am  

@nookie, you're getting confused by the word "ownership". You don't legally own it, but you feel vested in that road. That's a good thing, but in the end you don't get to call the shots. I was explaining why people FEEL like they have a vested right - it's human nature and the District encourages it.
Also use of the land isn't free. You have to pay for a plot.

It is amazing how people can argue both sides. For example, someone on here argued that it was ridiculous to take lanes from Penn Ave for bike lanes because they felt entitled to those lanes, but now that same person is arguing that "any free use they've gotten out of the use of the land over the years was a gift, not an entitlement."

BTW, where is that document you promised showing that Penn Ave had an LOS of F?

by David C on Jun 22, 2010 11:04 am  

@nookie

The park is indeed a public space - yet you'd like to allow the Marines to take that land and build a fortified barracks there? I'm not following your logic here.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2010 11:04 am  

I walk over to that garden during lunch time sometimes to see how stuff is growing. One of my co-workers has a plot there.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 22, 2010 11:05 am  

It's too bad that urbanists don't respect the U.S. military...

by MPC on Jun 22, 2010 11:33 am  

@David C,

PA Ave? Are you talking about Klingle Road which we discussed all day yesterday? As I posted, the LOS was in appendix F.

You can feel "vested" in whatever you want but adults realize that a "feeling" isn't ownership. Plain and simple.

And who does this money go to? DC Parks and Rec only own two community gardens in the city for which they charge a fee, this isn't one of them. By the looks of it, people pay a "fee" to a non city affliated non-profit for the "use" of public land. How that works is beyond me.

@Alex B,

Yes, thats exactly what I am saying. DC and the Feds have transfered land back and forth in the city forever. I am saying the net benefit in dollars and cents to the city as a whole and the cap hill businesses specifically is vastly more by accomodating thousands more people (I actually just looked up the Corps plans, not hundreds) with lots of disposable income than it is in some non-profit pocketing ~1,200 dollars a year for 40 garden plots on public, METRO accesible property.

I mean, really. A downtown METRO accessiblem URBAN plot of land versus ~3500 new money spending residents and we are having this discussion? Has hell frozen over?

by nookie on Jun 22, 2010 11:42 am  

@nookie

The Virginia Ave Park is currently a publicly accessible park. It always has been a park. It's been designated as open space in the L'Enfant plan. You're disparaging the current gardeners there for their exclusive use of that land, yet you'd allow the Marines to build a base there that will forever remove that land from being accessed by the general public?

Your comments about Metro accessibility are off the mark - it's not like this is land that could be developed by any other party but the Marines. Again, it's a public park.

Contrary to MPC's non-sequitir, the Marines are good neighbors in the area and the public enjoys having them around. Likewise, I think people are very open to their expansion needs. The problem comes from the design and force protection requirements for a new facility - requirements that make it very difficult to have the same kind of interaction between the Marines and the Neighborhood that you get at 8th and I.

You seem to be asserting that nobody wants the Marines - this is patently false.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2010 11:53 am  

Two thoughts:

First, people choose to live in the city based on a number of factors. The marginal tax rate is about as low on that list as to be irrelevant.

Second, on the subject of Tyson's, I have found that, with all the talk of nurturing "walkable" communities, the old-growth suburbs like Rockville, or Tysons *always* manage to do the expedient thing in the end, and fatally compromise any attempts at smart growth reconfiguration. In a decade or two, Tyson's will still be talking about how to encourage a less car-oriented model--and will still be a gridlocked hell-hole.

Heck, the urban core of DC can barely manage to implement smart growth policies, and it's one of the most progressive electorates in the nation. Hate to be a pessimist, but I'm betting suburban jurisdictions *always* do the wrong thing. The inertia of suburban traditions is just too strong.

by oboe on Jun 22, 2010 11:54 am  

i don't have a problem with the millionaire article, only the idea of using that reasoning to go through with raising taxes on higher earners. of course there aren't going to be swarms of people packing up all their belongings and selling their houses and going to the suburbs to save $1000 in taxes next year. that was never the issue. the issue is whether it will affect how many new high income earners will choose to move into the city. and with many very nice communities in the inner suburbs of Virginia and Maryland, you would be remiss to discount that high income earners will look at all the factors when deciding where to settle down.

plus, as a dc resident, you can just buy a vacation home somewhere else and claim you slept there half the nights and avoid paying dc income taxes. sure, it's a bit of a hassle and expense, but dc shouldn't encourage people to do that by raising taxes. we want the most income earners to pay dc taxes possible.

by RD on Jun 22, 2010 12:50 pm  

the jersey half-millionaire's tax was a fantastic boon for the New Jersey budget, and ultimately, for taxpayers, schools, schoolchildren, workers, business, etc.

Though I'm not convinced that DC's new high-earner tax bracket will drive people away from the city, it may discourage new area residents from choosing to move to DC as opposed to VA or MD.

the NJ study accounts for those folks, too. because of the new, higher tax rate on big earners, 60 or so people straight moved out of the state, and 350 or so refused to move in -- that's with an existing 40,000 or so folks who were in that $500k+ bracket. still, the number of millionaires living in NJ exploded -- probably mostly because of Wall Street folks living in NJ. thus, the massive $1 Billion haul for the budget. great stuff!

my only critique would have been to implement a smooth, exponential tax curve -- the step-ladder system with a top tax bracket is just a way to screw the non-rich. Use the massive inflows of money to implement the best universal health care system in the world -- that's what rich people are most worried about -- not being able to pay for their healthcare, then going bankrupt and dying alone on the street, in a cardboard box -- it's a terrible way to have to live -- always in fear of not having enough money for a simple operation -- so you horde money, engage in immoral, criminal, often horrific crimes to increase your net worth, etc. -- it's extremely damaging to society. i don't have proof of the link between lack of universal health care and criminal behavior -- particularly criminal financial behavior -- but i suspect it's there.

Klein's article notes that NJ raised its income taxes on millionaires, and then saw an outward migration of millionaires.

technically, on half-millionaires and up. i think the new proposed tax, that Christie vetoed, was a true millionaires and up tax. also, there was, according to the report, already an outward migration of half-millionaires -- the new higher tax just increased that net outward migration.

He glosses over that

yes, if by 'glosses over' you mean 'stated clearly, concisely, and explicitly'.

No matter how I look at that, I can't find a moral or practical justification for it.

the moral justification, i suppose, is that all non-rich people deserve to have less money. the practical justification is that it makes the very wealthy even wealthier, while making everyone else worse off - exactly what the Business Party calls for, especially the Republican faction of the Business Party.

But I do remember reading that Christie focused on the previous millionaire's tax and how it led to a loss of top earners, which the Princeton study appears to confirm.

the 'loss of top earners' is a red herring -- it's meaningless (unless you're an Objectivist and see some inherent value in having lots of rich people around). the only thing that matters is, was the tax increase good for the State of New Jersey? namely -- did it increase revenues? did it increase standard of living? did it benefit most of the residents/taxpayers of New Jersey? yes, yes, and yes. even if DC lost 99.9% of its top earners, as long as its tax code brought in an appropriate amount of taxes from the tax increase on that one remaining rich person in the District -- great -- mission accomplished. i.e. the number of rich people lost to neighboring states is meaningless -- what matters is 'are you raising enough money?' and 'did the tax increase increase revenues and meet your goals?' -- in the case of New Jersey, all earned a 'yes'.

i think the NJ case is interesting -- net outmigrations of relatively poor people b/c of the high cost of living -- that's, in part, b/c of high property taxes and high sales taxes. to keep the cost of living low, you have to keep property and sales taxes low, so you have to raise income taxes on the rich drastically. let's get it going!

by Peter Smith on Jun 22, 2010 3:55 pm  

@Peter Smith:

There's a line of dialogue from Billy Madison that is a perfect response.

by Fritz on Jun 22, 2010 5:09 pm  

The other problem, from a tax policy standpoint, with extremely high marginal rates is the prone to disappear from time to time.

You have to figure AMT into this as well. In an expensive area, people have big mortgages, and that can trigger AMT. I'm sure there is some sort of connection between an federal AMT filing and how you feel about your state taxes.

by charlie on Jun 22, 2010 5:16 pm  

+1 fritz

by Michael Perkins on Jun 22, 2010 5:24 pm  

There's a line of dialogue from Billy Madison that is a perfect response.

too late -- someone already offered the Billy Madison Defense a couple of weeks ago -- and like the Shaggy Defense, the Chewbacca Defense, and others -- it is ridiculous, petty, and shows you just have no response.

that's fine -- I don't expect rich folks to go along with my plan to have them pay their fair share -- quite the opposite in fact. i'm well aware that they feel they deserve their ill-gotten gains -- they fervently believe it. in fact, much of my work is in convincing even non-rich people that they actually deserve to be treated fairly -- it's kind of crazy, but that's what current American culture does to non-rich people -- makes them feel 'not worthy'.

as i've said before, Americans love to raise taxes -- especially on those who have not been paying their fair share -- the rich -- as has been demonstrated by every public opinion poll over the last two decades at least. A DC-area blogger, and Streetsblog Network member, just pointed to some of the more-recent evidence.

so, the fight to have the rich pay their fare share goes on. i sincerely hope we can jack up taxes in the future, and i hope that you all will be paying your fair share. :)

by Peter Smith on Jun 22, 2010 8:09 pm  

I was the one that was chastised for using the billy madison response. but are you really expected to respond to trolls with a rational response? no chance peter smith is real, and actually believes the stuff he is baiting you all with.

by RD on Jun 22, 2010 11:47 pm  

peter smith is not real! he's a troll! he disagrees with you! and he even uses...facts!

now - to more pressing matters -- watch England, or the US? developing... France out. Karma matters. Solidarity with the team members. If you don't shake someone's hand, you're a child. Out!

by Peter Smith on Jun 23, 2010 3:30 am  

Re: Realtime London Train Locations

Access denied

You are not authorized to access this page.

by Matthias on Jun 23, 2010 2:19 pm