California getting punitive on driving

"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo) 06/10/2020 at 10:51 • Filed to: None

3

20

California has passed a law that assesses a tax based on VMT (vehicle miles traveled) and incorporate that tax into housing costs. The idea is to push more population density, and encourage alternative means of transportation (which is not really available in much of California). It has been touted as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Critics contend that raising housing costs is a bad idea in a state where high housing costs drives economic inequality, and is certainly a factor in homelessness, as well as some, well, unique problems.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Opponents say that middle class and poor people tend to have to drive farther for work, and their communities will be disproportionately impacted. They say that increasing housing costs is an impediment to poor and middle class people building wealth.  Here in the San Joaquin Valley, as well as in other rural areas, this is a significant reality. Compared to the rest of the country this region is expensive, but it remains one of the few parts of California considered remotely affordable. I cannot imagine what my house would cost in the Bay Area or SoCal. I got it at the bottom of the market in the recession, but given recent sales in the neighborhood, it is probably worth $400,000-$500,000. I imagine it would be 2-3 times that down south or up north. My childhood home in the LA suburbs that my parents purchased for $50,000 in 1972 sold about a year ago for $3.5 million. This plan presents a potentially destructive impact on the rural part of the state, where people have to drive. So our local counties are pushing back.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

More recently, questions have begun to be asked about how good of an idea this law really is. As it becomes increasingly evident that population density has been a significant driver in the COVID-19 pandemic, do we really want to push for more population density?

This is a shining example of the problem with a one party system, as we have in California. Even if you hate the opposition, meaningful opposition tends to push more thoughtful policy. We will see how this story ends.

Michael > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:07

3

“Odometer’s broken, sorry. I probably put 3,000 miles on it last year. I don’t drive much”

Michael > Michael 06/10/2020 at 11:08

2

Oh I see it’s an average rolled into taxes based on ZIP or what have you. So even if you WFH and don’t commute much, you still get to pay the taxes because your neighbors drive into the city for work?

facw > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:09

4

Seems needlessly complicated.

I don’t think we can just ignore how driving damages the environment, but pretty much anything you do about it is effectively going to be a regressive tax. I’d say just collect a higher gas tax and redistribute evenly as a transportation stipend. That’s still going to increase costs for rural residents, but they are also doing more damage so I don’t see that as unfair.

And yes we should be seeking to increase density (or at least decrease driving) for efficiency. Covid spread first in urban areas, but it is spreading and going to continue to spread everywhere. The idea that rural areas are in any way immune is not backed up by what we are seeing, and indeed rural infections are an important driver in the surge of new cases in the South and Southwest. Just as importantly, pandemics are extremely rare events, and we shouldn’t be designing our communities around the fear of them.

As to one party states, I think political parties are quite damaging, but obviously aren’t going anywhere. I would like to replace party primaries with ranked choice voting general elections , which would give a better chance to replaced flawed incumbents. That’s still a big ask in most places, but I think within the realm of possibility.

TheRealBicycleBuck > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:11

6

They ran into the same kind of problems with urban growth boundaries. A per-mile tax is different in that it will disproportionately affect those living in outlying areas and those in rural areas. My mom drove 60 miles a day to get to work and back. Even here in Louisiana, we have two cars going 25+ miles a day.

So, California is going to make commuting cost-prohibitive in order to push people into urban areas where housing is already cost-prohibitive.

Is everyone over there just determined to shoot themselves in the foot?

ranwhenparked > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:12

1

My ideal situation has always been for one party to control no more than 2 of 3 elected organs at the state or federal levels (either both houses of the legislature, or one house + executive). It tends to force a degree of moderation and compromise, and helps temper the more extreme instincts at either end. Competitive elections are also always a good thing, we don't have them where I live, either, other than in the primaries. 

sony1492 > TheRealBicycleBuck 06/10/2020 at 11:15

14

Just stop being lower class, problem solved

DipodomysDeserti > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:16

1

“ The author of the bill, then-Sen. Darrell Steinberg, crafted the legislation to get an arena built for the NBA’s Sacramento Kings. He’s the Sacramento mayor now.”

There it is!

The article mentions it a bit, but people are working from home now, and I’d imagine for a while into the future. Kind of negates any sort of positives from this bill. It’s almost like CA law makers are in cahoots with landlords.

DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:18

4

I don’t see how anyone can afford to live in California. My family left living in the Bay Area because the commutes were too long and housing was far too expensive. And uh, that seems to have only gotten worse. I keep wondering when the breaking point will be for people to start leaving in droves but it seems like lots of people are content to stay and deal wit h it.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:24

1

They’ve been talking about doing distance based tolling here for the past few years. They envision scanners charging you as you drive from area to area, Ez Pass Style.

If it ever happens and I’m unable to move elsewhere I’ll burn my own vehicles to the ground and build a steam powered bicycle that runs on nothing but burning tires.

Also... getting punitive? Cali has been nothing but punitive when it comes to automobiles from what I hear. Auto enthusiast hell, weather aside.

Svend > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:26

3

They shouldn’t been even entertaining these ideas without having options in place such as buses, light rail ( trams, etc...) and trains in place.

You need to have the infrastructure in place to give people viable options, otherwise this is a tax grab on the populace. 

Snuze: Needs another Swede > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:28

0

Simple solution:

3point8isgreat > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 11:32

3

That’s a special kind of awful. The cost of living out there makes me want to leave California despite not even living there so that’s not possible . Maybe move there, just so I can leave it?

TheRealBicycleBuck > facw 06/10/2020 at 11:35

3

“That’s still going to increase costs for rural residents, but they are also doing more damage so I don’t see that as unfair.”

While each vehicle may travel more miles, the notion that they’re doing more damage is a little misguided. Roads are designed to handle specific minimum loads. The less traffic there is, the less cumulative damage there is. That’s one of the reasons that rural roads last so long. If you’re talking about air quality, there are minimum thresholds that have to be hit before there are negative repercussions and again, that is a function of total traffic volume.

If there’s going to be road usage tax, it should be more progressive in the rural areas. The folks that live out there have lower incomes yet  provide essential services even though they have to drive significantly greater distances to get their own basic needs met.

facw > TheRealBicycleBuck 06/10/2020 at 11:44

1

I was thinking more about in terms of carbon emissions, which are meaningful wherever they are produced.

It’s true that road damage is non-linear with vehicle weight, and really we are heavily subsidizing road freight by not having them pay for the wear that is mostly on them (especially in non-cold states, up here I think freeze thaw cycles do a pretty good job killing roads regardless of whether anyone is driving on them, so mileage may be more fair )

For smog, yeah most of those emissions are really less important in less dense areas.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > TheRealBicycleBuck 06/10/2020 at 12:19

0

“That’s still going to increase costs for rural residents, but they are also doing more damage so I don’t see that as unfair.” 

Just wait until the rural residents decide to impose a “you won’t have food without us” tax. Or you would prefer factory farming take complete control of the agriculture industry? 

TheRealBicycleBuck > facw 06/10/2020 at 12:22

1

Water plays a major role in road destruction, whether it’s freeze/thaw cycles or pumping action. Roads that aren’t sealed after they start cracking will let water infiltrate the base. When cars pass over, the compression forces water out of the cracks, carrying out the fine materials that hold the base in place. Enough pumping and the base disintegrates, causing potholes and depressions. Proper maintenance to seal the cracks will prevent water infiltration as long as the drainage system is adequate and functioning properly.

After a major storm where there is significant flooding, large trucks shouldn’t be allowed on flooded roads to prevent this kind of damage. Unfortunately, public works departments issue blanket over-weight permits so that the trucks removing the debris can remove it more efficiently. Overloaded trucks end up driving on submerged roads in residential areas where the roads aren’t designed for the trucks in the first place. That leads to the accelerated deterioration of the roads and in some cases, outright destruction of the roads.

Part of my post-disaster work has been securing funding for road repairs after major flood events....

TheRealBicycleBuck > haveacarortwoorthree2 06/10/2020 at 12:24

0

I think you’re ire is aimed at the wrong guy. I was quoting facw.

I agree that a per-mile tax is unfair for rural residents.

ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 12:33

1

I’m actually genera lly in favor of vehicles miles traveled taxes, but this is a strange way to go out about it. It seems like the most complicated possible implementation with most unintended impacts.  This whole thing just feels like the long way around.

I’d be all in favor of repealing per gallon fuel taxes and replacing them with a vehicle miles traveled tax, say tied to the annual registration fee of a vehicle. As a transportation funding mechanism, at some point we’re either going to have to substantially raise gas taxes at the federal level (and in many states like mine, also at the state level), or we’re going to have to look at vmt taxes that would be a lot more equitable.

wafflesnfalafel > ImmoralMinority 06/10/2020 at 13:02

1

neat - a completely regressive tax used to promote progressiveness. I smell a strong bicycle lobby in this one!

TheRealBicycleBuck > DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back 06/10/2020 at 13:16

0

The ones that can afford to leave move to Texas. They finally figured out that they don’t need as much money to retire in Texas. Unfortunately, they are turning the most liberal place in the state into a mini California, driving up prices in t he process.