> What is really rediculously cheap in the city are the streets.
>
> I am simply against the "soak it to the suit and computer
> crowd" attitude. We need more of the attitude that every car we get off
> the street benefits us all - in less pollution, less congestion, and a more
> harmonious place to live.
Hello, Richard,
I actually agree with just about everything you said. The problem is,
road pricing is not going to happen in the near future. Even if we
could get San Francisco to agree to it, the State would veto it. MUNI
has to function in the political environment we have, and,
unfortunately, that does not include road pricing. What we CAN do, I
think, is give MUNI greater priority on the streets, e.g., replace
parking lanes with dedicated transit lanes, give MUNI busses control
over stop lights to speed service, et cetera. I believe that is within
the City's control, but we need to decide to do it. . . .
MUNI has many problems, but under-funding is an important one. Given
that it is politically impossible to get money from road pricing, and
downtown taxes would prbably be counter-productive, where is the money
going to come from? Even New York charges half again what MUNI does. I
don't like raising fares, but I also don't think it should be dismissed
out of hand. I, personally, would gladly pay more for better service.
>
> From: David Powers <chromo@sirius.com>
> I don't see what's different between San Francisco's employment tax
> and NYC's income tax. Dense areas require more services and more
> money, but ultimately they're cheaper and less onerous than spreading
> people out very thin and spending a fortune on transportation.
I agree with your second point. The problem with an employment tax
should be obvious, you're discouraging people from employing other
people. It hurts everyone at all income levels. An income tax taxes
income, it hurts those with more income more than it hurts those with
less income. Also, with the former, you are taxing economic
transactions, encouraging those to leave your city. With the latter,
you are taxing posession of wealth, which has already left most cities.
Cities, almost by definition, are centers of trade. Trade involves
economic transactions. You don't want to do anything that will
encourage those to move to someone elses city.
> San Francisco will always be fighting about this, because there are
> two hearts here, a regional business center, and a strikingly
> beautiful local city.
This is partly true. The real reason is that we can't decide whether we
are a "strikingly beautiful" bedroom community, or a real city. Are we
New York or London in mineature, or are we a hyperthyroid Pleasanton?
If we are the former, than the fact that San Francisco is the center of
West Coast finance is a good thing, and we need a large downtown, which
more-or-less directly finances most of our vaunted city services. If we
insist on being the latter, downtown will slowly leave and, ultimately,
so will MUNI, et al, and we will eventually join Detroit and Cleaveland,
once great cities that now barely survive. We can't have it both ways.
___
I would fully support using some or all of the money for the musium
garage for MUNI extensions.
-- _________________________ Donald F. Robertson San Franciscodonaldrf@hooked.net 76217.2066@CompuServe.com
Donald's Space Exploration page: http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.