Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shivetya | Hacker News Reader

so are they voting it down because they are being taxed for something they cannot use or benefit from directly?

as for toll lanes, welcome to the the new means of permanent revenue extraction. Atlanta got them in spades including one near billion dollar installation that cannot be used if ice threatens because its nearly all bridges. people had to fight to remove tolls that were promised to be removed from GA400 years ago after it was paid off so now the state just switched to "express lanes" which is a PC way of saying toll lanes.

View on HN

I have no problems with the new PeachPass lanes _that were constructed for the purpose_.

Stealing existing lanes of I-75 that taxpayers paid for "because congestion" and turning them into PeachPass lanes so that the well-off can pay for an easier commute while simultaneously making the rest of us who can't afford to do that have an even more congested road is folly IMO.

Having a bustling city center in easy metro access while you sit comfy in the suburbs seems like a great benefit to me. Drives up your land value while you suffer almost none of the detriments to metro-ization.

So they pay a higher tax rate on higher valued property and get nothing in return until they sell their home and move to a different city? That’s not a great sales pitch.

You're not getting anything in return until you sell your home in any other circumstance (beyond leasing a room or the entire residence and hoping you can make a profit) anyway, what's the difference between higher property tax to pay for transit and higher property taxes to pay for, say, police pensions? Points to Chicago's property tax/pension nightmare

Maybe people would prefer the unstated third option of lower property tax.

You say "revenue extraction" but why is it bad? Roads need to be paid for and having express lanes that convince some people to pay more voluntarily seems like a good thing.

Busses and trains aren't free (usually) so I don't see why highways should be free.

I agree. Probably the most sensible approach.

In some places the taxes on roads far outweights the cost for the gas tax/other forms meant to pay for the upkeep. Transit or general budgets keep the overflow. Probably a good idea in terms of transit funding as increased transit has a traffic clearing effect.

Nobody's saying highways should be free, but you're ignoring the fact that your federal tax dollars are supposed to be paying for the interstate highways, and the ad valorem tax, license plate fees, gas taxes and myriad of other vehicular fees you get hit with are supposed to pay for the local roads.

400 in particular was a dick move. They pitched a highway and said they'd fund it by making it a toll road, to be revoked once it paid for itself. It wasn't. Traffic backed up for miles so they could continue to collect a measly $.50 out of scope for years.

so are they voting it down because they are being taxed for something they cannot use or benefit from directly?

I'm hesitant to say this is exactly it (or even that it's one specific thing), since--if memory serves, and I'm opening this up for someone who perhaps has a better memory than I do, there was a bond package in 2005 that wouldn't have even affected the western edges of Travis County as the Cities of Bee Cave and West Lake are unincorporated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com