Comments on: ‘Snow Tax’ to ‘Land Use Tax’ — Time to Experiment http://citiwire.net/post/1728/ Our mission... to reflect a new narrative for 21st century cities and regions. Leaving behind the 20th century pattern of cheap energy, endless automobility, burgeoning suburbs, threatened inner cities. To a challenge-packed 21st century: energy prices headed north, perilous carbon emissions, deepening have-have not divisions, excruciating social problems and deep challenges in education. But a time of exciting promise, too. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert Holmes http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1161 Robert Holmes Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:27:00 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1161 FYI, real snow insurance already available to commercial entities and governments. The Vortex Insurance Agency (my employer) offers such coverage. Rob FYI, real snow insurance already available to commercial entities and governments. The Vortex Insurance Agency (my employer) offers such coverage.

Rob

]]> By: Alex Marshall http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1150 Alex Marshall Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:28:24 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1150 Professor Michael Pagano, the dean of the planning college at the University of Illinois, takes Al Appleton's concept a bridge too far in saying that government should put in place a system where only the payers of a "fee" could receive a service, such as snow removal. While instituting some sort of general charge for something like snow removal has some merit, the whole point of taxation and government in general is to put in places services as well as general infrastructure that can and should be used by everyone. There are great economies of scale with this, and efficiencies, not to mention things like a fairer, juster society. If all we needed were fees for services when needed, well, private insurance companies could offer snow removal. But the snow in front of my neighbor's house also inconveniences me, so there is a reason to pay for such services through some form of general taxation, even if it is called a fee. Likewise, while it may make some sense to have some segmentation of taxpayers in terms of close in or farther out in their use of infrastructure, we want to avoid the segmentation of citizens into categories so completely that we start to lose the sense of there being a common citizenry. That is not a good path. Professor Michael Pagano, the dean of the planning college at the University of Illinois, takes Al Appleton’s concept a bridge too far in saying that government should put in place a system where only the payers of a “fee” could receive a service, such as snow removal. While instituting some sort of general charge for something like snow removal has some merit, the whole point of taxation and government in general is to put in places services as well as general infrastructure that can and should be used by everyone. There are great economies of scale with this, and efficiencies, not to mention things like a fairer, juster society. If all we needed were fees for services when needed, well, private insurance companies could offer snow removal. But the snow in front of my neighbor’s house also inconveniences me, so there is a reason to pay for such services through some form of general taxation, even if it is called a fee. Likewise, while it may make some sense to have some segmentation of taxpayers in terms of close in or farther out in their use of infrastructure, we want to avoid the segmentation of citizens into categories so completely that we start to lose the sense of there being a common citizenry. That is not a good path.

]]> By: Chris Allison http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1148 Chris Allison Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:18:02 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1148 You and Al Appleton hit the mark, we do need smarter government. However, smarter government and smaller government are not mutually exclusive. While median household income has risen 32% since 1970, total federal spending has increased an astounding 221% and federal spending has not decreased year over year since 1968 at the latest. Like our country's carbon emissions, this level of spending is not sustainable. This pertains to your snow insurance idea and Al Appleton's innovative thinking because many citizens now tune out any ideas for the general public (whether good or bad) due to a belief that the federal government is one giant money-pit. If the federal government and state governments restored the faith Americans used to have in how their hard earned tax dollars were spent, I imagine you would find a more receptive audience to your constructive proposals. Sincerely, Chris Allison Seattle, WA You and Al Appleton hit the mark, we do need smarter government. However, smarter government and smaller government are not mutually exclusive. While median household income has risen 32% since 1970, total federal spending has increased an astounding 221% and federal spending has not decreased year over year since 1968 at the latest. Like our country’s carbon emissions, this level of spending is not sustainable.

This pertains to your snow insurance idea and Al Appleton’s innovative thinking because many citizens now tune out any ideas for the general public (whether good or bad) due to a belief that the federal government is one giant money-pit. If the federal government and state governments restored the faith Americans used to have in how their hard earned tax dollars were spent, I imagine you would find a more receptive audience to your constructive proposals.

Sincerely,

Chris Allison
Seattle, WA

]]> By: Neal Peirce http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1147 Neal Peirce Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:39:09 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1147 Received from Michael Pogana, Univ of Ilinois-Chicago: I particularly enjoyed reading the latest "Snow Tax to Land Use Tax" article, especially the comment about Appleton's "Land-service use tax". I've been arguing that infrastructure, in particular, has been poorly managed and funded because governments rely on very bad pricing mechanisms. When pricing mechanisms are bad and underprice the true cost of infrastructure, people consume too much because the price is set too low (leading to deteriorating infrastructure) or find ways to avoid paying for it yet still consuming (exurban development). My assessment appears to be similar to Appleton's notion, but mine does not use the "tax" label. Indeed, I would refer to his innovation as a "land-service use fee" in that only users of the services that are delivered to the property are charged; no cross-subsidization is required; no general tax levy is required. In the end, a better pricing mechanism that requires consumers to pay for their portion of consuming public infrastructure (and other public services) will, in all probabilities, result in "compact, in-town and physically closeby developments", as you indicate. The challenge will be to create a pricing scheme that allows at least minimal consumption of infrastructure and services for those who can't otherwise afford it (ability to pay). But the problem is not intractable. It's only political. Kudos! Great article. Mike Michael A. Pagano, Ph.D. Dean, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/ Professor of Public Administration University of Illinois at Chicago Received from Michael Pogana, Univ of Ilinois-Chicago:
I particularly enjoyed reading the latest “Snow Tax to Land Use Tax” article, especially the comment about Appleton’s “Land-service use tax”. I’ve been arguing that infrastructure, in particular, has been poorly managed and funded because governments rely on very bad pricing mechanisms. When pricing mechanisms are bad and underprice the true cost of infrastructure, people consume too much because the price is set too low (leading to deteriorating infrastructure) or find ways to avoid paying for it yet still consuming (exurban development). My assessment appears to be similar to Appleton’s notion, but mine does not use the “tax” label. Indeed, I would refer to his innovation as a “land-service use fee” in that only users of the services that are delivered to the property are charged; no cross-subsidization is required; no general tax levy is required.

In the end, a better pricing mechanism that requires consumers to pay for their portion of consuming public infrastructure (and other public services) will, in all probabilities, result in “compact, in-town and physically closeby developments”, as you indicate. The challenge will be to create a pricing scheme that allows at least minimal consumption of infrastructure and services for those who can’t otherwise afford it (ability to pay). But the problem is not intractable. It’s only political.

Kudos! Great article.
Mike

Michael A. Pagano, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/
Professor of Public Administration
University of Illinois at Chicago

]]> By: Mary Nordstrom http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1145 Mary Nordstrom Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:26:37 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1145 The snow tax idea is great, and reading the intro hastily, I credited it to you when I forwarded your page to the Portland Press Herald. They may contact you to reprint it. When I finished my emails, I went back and read the whole thing. The PPH had called me before printing my letter about my granddaughter snow shoveling with a salad bowl in Georgetown. Her mother, our daughter Phyllis, has said that with no snow in Maine, enterprising people with pickup trucks could have made a fortune had they headed for DC to clear side roads and driveways. Maybe next time! The snow tax idea is great, and reading the intro hastily, I credited it to you when I forwarded your page to the Portland Press Herald. They may contact you to reprint it. When I finished my emails, I went back and read the whole thing. The PPH had called me before printing my letter about my granddaughter snow shoveling with a salad bowl in Georgetown. Her mother, our daughter Phyllis, has said that with no snow in Maine, enterprising people with pickup trucks could have made a fortune had they headed for DC to clear side roads and driveways. Maybe next time!

]]> By: Robert Justice http://citiwire.net/post/1728/comment-page-1/#comment-1144 Robert Justice Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:00:49 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1728#comment-1144 Several years ago I read an article about a young, Japanese, super mathetician who worked for insurance companies on how to pay or recover from natural disasters. They had thought that some way they could use insurance and the market to set aside money for these occurrences. After several years of study, he came to the conclusion that the only way they could be covered, as their costs were so gigantic, is after the fact with a 1-2% national sales tax. Over the past two years my homeowners insurance in Kingwood, Texas just north of Houston has increased 50%. I am 75 miles inland and way above the flood plane. In discussions with my agent, from a very large insurance company, he told me their losses were so high from Katrina, Rita and Ike that they could no longer write new homeowners insurance policies on the Gulf coast. I have to believe him as he has treated me fairly over the past 30 years. Maybe the sales tax is the way to go. Robert Gailor Justice Kingwood, Texas Several years ago I read an article about a young, Japanese, super mathetician who worked for insurance companies on how to pay or recover from natural disasters. They had thought that some way they could use insurance and the market to set aside money for these occurrences. After several years of study, he came to the conclusion that the only way they could be covered, as their costs were so gigantic, is after the fact with a 1-2% national sales tax. Over the past two years my homeowners insurance in Kingwood, Texas just north of Houston has increased 50%. I am 75 miles inland and way above the flood plane. In discussions with my agent, from a very large insurance company, he told me their losses were so high from Katrina, Rita and Ike that they could no longer write new homeowners insurance policies on the Gulf coast. I have to believe him as he has treated me fairly over the past 30 years. Maybe the sales tax is the way to go.
Robert Gailor Justice
Kingwood, Texas

]]>