Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Tea Party mobilizing against mass transit in Indianapolis

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Tea Party mobilizing against mass transit in Indianapolis

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #537461

    InnerCore
    Participant

    Lu said:
    The biggest beneficiaries are surely the landowners who own property adjacent to the planned transit lines. That’s why any plan that taxes people from across an entire region (like the Indy plan, and the prior Columbus plans) is inherently unfair and subject to voter opposition. People who don’t benefit from the transit lines are still taxed to pay for them. Meanwhile, commercial landowners benefit greatly through increased property values.

    The only fair way to pay for these lines is to tax the adjacent commercial landowners through Tax Increment Financing.

    The benefits of mass transit extend to the rest of the city and even those who do not use the system. So not taxing those who aren’t adjacent to the system who would also benefit would also be inherently unfair.

    Now some will benefit MORE than others. So you may wan’t to tax the people close more. Which is exactly what the prior Columbus plan proposed to do.

    Coleman’s financing plan thus raises about 80 percent of the project’s start-up cash from the area near the line, which supporters assert would reap the greatest economic benefit if the streetcar project achieves its goals. This “benefit zone” includes Downtown Columbus, the Arena District, the Short North, Victorian and Italian villages, and the University District.

    #537462

    joev
    Participant

    Lu said:
    The biggest beneficiaries are surely the landowners who own property adjacent to the planned transit lines. That’s why any plan that taxes people from across an entire region (like the Indy plan, and the prior Columbus plans) is inherently unfair and subject to voter opposition. People who don’t benefit from the transit lines are still taxed to pay for them. Meanwhile, commercial landowners benefit greatly through increased property values.

    The only fair way to pay for these lines is to tax the adjacent commercial landowners through Tax Increment Financing.

    Others don’t benefit by having fewer cars to share streets with? Increased property values and development along lines don’t decrease the tax burden for others? You take a really narrow view of public works.

    #537463

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    Property taxes in NYC are almost non-existent because there isn’t 1/4 mile of infrastructure necessary for each 2 citizens.

    #537464
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Lu said:
    The biggest beneficiaries are surely the landowners who own property adjacent to the planned transit lines. That’s why any plan that taxes people from across an entire region (like the Indy plan, and the prior Columbus plans) is inherently unfair and subject to voter opposition. People who don’t benefit from the transit lines are still taxed to pay for them. Meanwhile, commercial landowners benefit greatly through increased property values.

    The only fair way to pay for these lines is to tax the adjacent commercial landowners through Tax Increment Financing.

    I was wondering if democrat owned businesses / properties would stand to benefit financially from the proposed spending.

    Perhaps the opposition isn’t thinking that far ahead, but I wondered.

    #537465

    gramarye
    Participant

    Splitting the costs of development and having adjacent landowners bear most of the costs and all regional taxpayers paying a much more diluted share makes sense. If the Indianapolis proposal did not do so, I could understand the opposition. However, I have a very strong feeling that the tea party groups there never looked that far; they probably never read beyond the word “transit.” They probably would have opposed it even if it were 100% TIF-funded.

    #537466
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    rus said:

    Perhaps the opposition isn’t thinking that far ahead, but I wondered.

    Considering the things the Tea Party have decided to oppose, I’m not sure they really have a cohesive, long term plan…

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-19-2013/tea-party-manatee-riding-patriots

    #537467
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Splitting the costs of development and having adjacent landowners bear most of the costs and all regional taxpayers paying a much more diluted share makes sense. If the Indianapolis proposal did not do so, I could understand the opposition. However, I have a very strong feeling that the tea party groups there never looked that far; they probably never read beyond the word “transit.” They probably would have opposed it even if it were 100% TIF-funded.

    Possible, sure.

    #537468

    Lu
    Participant

    joev said:
    Others don’t benefit by having fewer cars to share streets with? Increased property values and development along lines don’t decrease the tax burden for others? You take a really narrow view of public works.

    Don’t get me wrong: I support transit. I just think it needs to be paid for fairly. (It’s hard to argue that someone who lives in Westgate and works downtown, for example, would benefit measurably from a 2.8-mile High Street streetcar. So why should he pay for it?)

    I don’t see the downside of having adjacent commercial landowners pay the bulk of the cost through a TIF. Plenty of other cities have done this successfully. Seems like everyone would be happy except, perhaps, the Casto’s and Pizzuti’s of the world. (But their properties will grow in value, so they’ll be happy too.)

    #537469

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    Most likely the cost will be passed on to the tenants. The mere presence of rail transit raises rents and having those along the line finance the project increases it more.

    Lu, the old “I don’t use it so I’m not paying for it” breaks the concept of taxation. I don’t have kids, yet I have to fund the schools. My house isn’t on fire, but I still have to fund the fire department. When we become selfish enough that we refuse to pay for anything that we personally can’t quantify the value to ME we descend into anarchy. You think I give a crap about some highway project in Idaho? Nope, but the alternative is making every road a toll road. I suppose I wouldn’t mind that; people would be paying the actual costs of their trips each time rather than receiving a subsidy.

    #537470
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Lu said:
    Don’t get me wrong: I support transit. I just think it needs to be paid for fairly. (It’s hard to argue that someone who lives in Westgate and works downtown, for example, would benefit measurably from a 2.8-mile High Street streetcar. So why should he pay for it?)

    I don’t see the downside of having adjacent commercial landowners pay the bulk of the cost through a TIF. Plenty of other cities have done this successfully. Seems like everyone would be happy except, perhaps, the Casto’s and Pizzuti’s of the world. (But their properties will grow in value, so they’ll be happy too.)

    While I agree with the second part, to an extent, as pointed out above…the logic in the first part is deeply flawed on several levels.

    1. Rail is a proven economic development tool, economic development benefits everyone.

    2. The “I don’t use it, so I shouldn’t pay for it” mentality doesn’t work in society. People without children should still support the school systems, roads I don’t drive on should still be maintained, etc.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

The forum ‘Transportation’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: