Discussion:
Don't expect cheaper cars
Add Reply
RichA
2021-10-09 06:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.

https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
trotsky
2021-10-09 13:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Worry about your own country shitbag.
Your Name
2021-10-09 21:41:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\

Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.



As an aside, anyone in America wanting a new Subaru BRZ sportscar
should import it from Canada. Apparently it's cheaper that way.
<https://jalopnik.com/its-cheaper-to-import-a-brz-from-canada-than-to-buy-one-1847812535>
BTR1701
2021-10-09 22:25:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.

And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.

I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.

There would also have to be some exemption for vehicles that are never
driven on the public roads at all. Many rural farm and ranch owners own
pickups and other vehicles that never leave their private property. Some
of those ranches in Texas are almost the size of Rhode Island-- they
have whole fleets of such vehicles. I'm sure there are similar
situations in California. An owner of a vehicle that is never operated
on public roads is not required to have it insured, nor do they even
need a driver license to drive it, so they shouldn't have to be paying
mileage taxes on them either.

I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.

So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.

Some of the other new and exciting ways to make driving your car as
unpleasant as possible that Newsom and his horde of 'progressives' are
cooking up for us in the name of 'battling climate change':

"Road diets" - This is where they take an existing major surface avenue
or boulevard, typically four to six lanes in each direction, and block
off all but one or two lanes, forcing the already-heavy traffic into
half the space. This has the intended effect of creating hopeless
gridlock and tripling or quadrupling commute times. They want driving
your car to suck so bad that even riding a bus with a violent
schizophrenic or a masturbating vagrant is preferable to sitting in
traffic for hours on end. It also has the unintended effect of inducing
more and more people to use navigation apps and pour into the
surrounding residential neighborhoods to avoid the altered roads and the
stalled traffic. The city is working on ways to make that illegal, too.

"Congestion pricing" - They want to setup special zones where people
drive the most-- downtown, the West Side, etc.-- and charge you $4.00
every time your car enters and leaves those zones during peak times of
the day. So if you happen to live in one of those zones, you won't be
able to leave your home (or come back to it) without having to pay a
tithe to the city. This will require putting up cameras with ALPR
readers at every possible entry into those zones at who-knows-how-much
cost to the taxpayer, so we'll get the privilege of funding our own
panopticon. No word yet how this will effect people from out of state
(since these zones will necessarily cover a lot of major tourist
destinations). If you drive into the zone with a Nebraska tag, will the
system be able to access the Nebraska DMV, too, and send a bill waiting
for you when you get home?

Toll roads - they have big plans to convert most of the major freeways
in L.A. to toll roads, roads that we own, that we've already paid for
with our tax dollars, will now be off limits to us unless we pay extra
for the privilege of using what we already own.

What's especially ironic is that most of these schemes impact the poor
hardest of all. The maid who works in some posh Brentwood home can least
afford to pay $4.00 every time she comes and goes, plus the toll on the
freeway to get there, plus the taxes on the miles she drives going back
and forth, plus the hours spent away from her family sitting in
intentionally created road diet traffic. So these 'progressive'
Democrats are slamming the people they supposedly care most about with
these Orwellian behavior control schemes. Shows you how much they really
care, doesn't it?

Forward!
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-09 22:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.
Electrics never should have been treated differently. There's nothing
environmentally sound about them. They still take up land for parking,
unless the George Jetson folding flying car model is available.
Post by BTR1701
I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.
There would also have to be some exemption for vehicles that are never
driven on the public roads at all. Many rural farm and ranch owners own
pickups and other vehicles that never leave their private property. Some
of those ranches in Texas are almost the size of Rhode Island-- they
have whole fleets of such vehicles. I'm sure there are similar
situations in California. An owner of a vehicle that is never operated
on public roads is not required to have it insured, nor do they even
need a driver license to drive it, so they shouldn't have to be paying
mileage taxes on them either.
Currently they are allowed to use untaxed gasoline if the farm owner has
his own fuel tank and they don't fill up at a gas station.
Post by BTR1701
I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.
I have no idea what you've come up with that won't tell the gubmint your
origin, route, and destination for the purpose of administering a tax.
Post by BTR1701
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Post by BTR1701
. . .
BTR1701
2021-10-10 17:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.
Electrics never should have been treated differently. There's nothing
environmentally sound about them. They still take up land for parking,
unless the George Jetson folding flying car model is available.
Well, there's parking garages, most of which are private property. The
garage takes up the land whether any cars are in it or not, and since
it's on private land, it's none of the government's business whether
cars are being parked on it or not.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.
There would also have to be some exemption for vehicles that are never
driven on the public roads at all. Many rural farm and ranch owners own
pickups and other vehicles that never leave their private property. Some
of those ranches in Texas are almost the size of Rhode Island-- they
have whole fleets of such vehicles. I'm sure there are similar
situations in California. An owner of a vehicle that is never operated
on public roads is not required to have it insured, nor do they even
need a driver license to drive it, so they shouldn't have to be paying
mileage taxes on them either.
Currently they are allowed to use untaxed gasoline if the farm owner has
his own fuel tank and they don't fill up at a gas station.
Post by BTR1701
I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.
I have no idea what you've come up with that won't tell the gubmint your
origin, route, and destination for the purpose of administering a tax.
Maybe it can't be done. In which case, I come back to the government
learning to live within its means as the preferable solution to adding
yet more taxes to pay for something they should have already been doing
*before* giving illegal aliens free lawyers at taxpayer expense.

The actual solution is for the state to just accept that in a free
society, some things just ought not to be done by the government, and if
the government is in financial straits, maybe it should stop assuming
it's always entitled to more, more, more and do what all the rest of us
do with a limited amount of money to play with: prioritize spending on
necessaries and jettison the luxuries.

So, for example, if the state doesn't have enough money to fix the roads
(a basic function of government, hence a necessary), then it should cut
some luxuries-- i.e., spending millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to
contest perfectly legitimate and constitutional federal immigration
actions. Or get rid of the "Deputy Provost for Inclusion and Diversity"
that can be found at every state and local college and university these
days, all of whom are taking $300K/yr in salary and whose departments
are sucking up millions of tax dollars each. I could go on all day
listing 'luxuries' that we can easily do without, certainly if the
alternative is a literally Orwellian citizen tracking program that
documents one's every move so the government can

(1) dig in their pockets some more and

(2) engage in social engineering projects that are none of its business
in the first place and

(3) charge me thousands of dollars for driving my own car on vacation
outside of California where it's not entitled to tax revenue.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
shawn
2021-10-11 13:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.

I suspect any solution is going to be met with howls whether it be
monitoring the miles people drive and charging a fee per mile or
charging some flat fee per year for every vehicle or some other
solution. After all there are clear issues with each of those
solutions (driving on private land vs public, charging the same fee
for vehicles that aren't being used at all or very much) so there's
lots of room for argument.
moviePig
2021-10-11 13:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
I suspect any solution is going to be met with howls whether it be
monitoring the miles people drive and charging a fee per mile or
charging some flat fee per year for every vehicle or some other
solution. After all there are clear issues with each of those
solutions (driving on private land vs public, charging the same fee
for vehicles that aren't being used at all or very much) so there's
lots of room for argument.
"...any solution is going to be met with howls..."

Let's take a moment to acknowledge this truism...
BTR1701
2021-10-11 18:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.

(Except the elites, of course. I'm sure there will be exceptions for our
honorable and heroic politicians and our precious, precious celebrities.
I don't expect to ever see the likes of Mayor Garcetti or Alec Baldwin
sitting shoulder to shoulder on a crowded bus while a vagrant vomits on
*their* shoes.)
trotsky
2021-10-11 18:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
(Except the elites, of course. I'm sure there will be exceptions for our
honorable and heroic politicians and our precious, precious celebrities.
I don't expect to ever see the likes of Mayor Garcetti or Alec Baldwin
sitting shoulder to shoulder on a crowded bus while a vagrant vomits on
*their* shoes.)
Prove it, liar.
shawn
2021-10-11 21:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
When locating people near the places that need those people seems to
be one of the easiest ways to limit traffic. Instead I keep hearing
about people being forced to travel hours each day to and from work
because they can't afford to live near the places that they work at.
Post by BTR1701
(Except the elites, of course. I'm sure there will be exceptions for our
honorable and heroic politicians and our precious, precious celebrities.
I don't expect to ever see the likes of Mayor Garcetti or Alec Baldwin
sitting shoulder to shoulder on a crowded bus while a vagrant vomits on
*their* shoes.)
Your Name
2021-10-11 23:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
When locating people near the places that need those people seems to
be one of the easiest ways to limit traffic. Instead I keep hearing
about people being forced to travel hours each day to and from work
because they can't afford to live near the places that they work at.
In many cases people travel long distances to work because they
*choose* to live elsewhere. Often this is because the housing areas
around business / industrial districts are often at the extremes of
either "poor housing" or hugely expensive apartments. Other times it's
due to city houses being apartments or having fairly small plots
without proper gardens or garaging.

For example, many people who work in London choose to live in the
quieter outer subrubs or more rural villages around the city, with
bigger gardens, etc. and commute by train or car every day ... for some
people that can mean two or more hours travel each way.

But it really only "works" in places that have high populations to give
more efficient and better designed public transport system.

I past times some rich business owners actually built entire villages
for their workers - factories, housing, shops, etc. A bed manufacturer
here in New Zealand is currently trying to that again now.
shawn
2021-10-12 00:04:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
When locating people near the places that need those people seems to
be one of the easiest ways to limit traffic. Instead I keep hearing
about people being forced to travel hours each day to and from work
because they can't afford to live near the places that they work at.
In many cases people travel long distances to work because they
*choose* to live elsewhere. Often this is because the housing areas
around business / industrial districts are often at the extremes of
either "poor housing" or hugely expensive apartments. Other times it's
due to city houses being apartments or having fairly small plots
without proper gardens or garaging.
For example, many people who work in London choose to live in the
quieter outer subrubs or more rural villages around the city, with
bigger gardens, etc. and commute by train or car every day ... for some
people that can mean two or more hours travel each way.
Yes, I know that seems to be the case in NYC where people may live in
Jersey and take the train into/out of town. In the case of San
Francisco/Silicon Valley it seems it's a case of not enough housing in
the area. Let alone affordable housing. That combined with
aforementioned refusal to allow apartments to be built in many areas
leaving people with little choice but to live elsewhere and either
find work locally or spend hours commuting to their job.
Post by Your Name
But it really only "works" in places that have high populations to give
more efficient and better designed public transport system.
I past times some rich business owners actually built entire villages
for their workers - factories, housing, shops, etc. A bed manufacturer
here in New Zealand is currently trying to that again now.
Wasn't it Elon that was floating that idea here in the USA? I remember
someone was floating the idea. Certainly it needs to be a business
that's big enough to need the ongoing workforce and with deep enough
pockets to fund such a project.
Your Name
2021-10-12 00:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Your Name
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
When locating people near the places that need those people seems to
be one of the easiest ways to limit traffic. Instead I keep hearing
about people being forced to travel hours each day to and from work
because they can't afford to live near the places that they work at.
In many cases people travel long distances to work because they
*choose* to live elsewhere. Often this is because the housing areas
around business / industrial districts are often at the extremes of
either "poor housing" or hugely expensive apartments. Other times it's
due to city houses being apartments or having fairly small plots
without proper gardens or garaging.
For example, many people who work in London choose to live in the
quieter outer subrubs or more rural villages around the city, with
bigger gardens, etc. and commute by train or car every day ... for some
people that can mean two or more hours travel each way.
Yes, I know that seems to be the case in NYC where people may live in
Jersey and take the train into/out of town. In the case of San
Francisco/Silicon Valley it seems it's a case of not enough housing in
the area. Let alone affordable housing. That combined with
aforementioned refusal to allow apartments to be built in many areas
leaving people with little choice but to live elsewhere and either
find work locally or spend hours commuting to their job.
Post by Your Name
But it really only "works" in places that have high populations to give
more efficient and better designed public transport system.
I past times some rich business owners actually built entire villages
for their workers - factories, housing, shops, etc. A bed manufacturer
here in New Zealand is currently trying to that again now.
Wasn't it Elon that was floating that idea here in the USA? I remember
someone was floating the idea. Certainly it needs to be a business
that's big enough to need the ongoing workforce and with deep enough
pockets to fund such a project.
It depends. There are various ways the company can recoup the money
spent building the village.

In many cases the workers may still have to pay rent (still cheaper
than regular renting) or have the option of a rent-to-own scheme for
the housing. The company often owns the shops and entertainment venues
(pubs, movie theatre, etc.), so gets the profit from sales made in them.

Increased "worker satisfaction" (including happiness in not having to
travel long commutes) can also lead to higher productivity withint the
business work itself.

In ye olde days it used to be mainly mining companies (especially coal
mining in the UK), but it has worked for some others too (e.g.
Cadbury's Bournville village).
shawn
2021-10-12 02:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by shawn
Post by Your Name
Post by shawn
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
When locating people near the places that need those people seems to
be one of the easiest ways to limit traffic. Instead I keep hearing
about people being forced to travel hours each day to and from work
because they can't afford to live near the places that they work at.
In many cases people travel long distances to work because they
*choose* to live elsewhere. Often this is because the housing areas
around business / industrial districts are often at the extremes of
either "poor housing" or hugely expensive apartments. Other times it's
due to city houses being apartments or having fairly small plots
without proper gardens or garaging.
For example, many people who work in London choose to live in the
quieter outer subrubs or more rural villages around the city, with
bigger gardens, etc. and commute by train or car every day ... for some
people that can mean two or more hours travel each way.
Yes, I know that seems to be the case in NYC where people may live in
Jersey and take the train into/out of town. In the case of San
Francisco/Silicon Valley it seems it's a case of not enough housing in
the area. Let alone affordable housing. That combined with
aforementioned refusal to allow apartments to be built in many areas
leaving people with little choice but to live elsewhere and either
find work locally or spend hours commuting to their job.
Post by Your Name
But it really only "works" in places that have high populations to give
more efficient and better designed public transport system.
I past times some rich business owners actually built entire villages
for their workers - factories, housing, shops, etc. A bed manufacturer
here in New Zealand is currently trying to that again now.
Wasn't it Elon that was floating that idea here in the USA? I remember
someone was floating the idea. Certainly it needs to be a business
that's big enough to need the ongoing workforce and with deep enough
pockets to fund such a project.
It depends. There are various ways the company can recoup the money
spent building the village.
In many cases the workers may still have to pay rent (still cheaper
than regular renting) or have the option of a rent-to-own scheme for
the housing. The company often owns the shops and entertainment venues
(pubs, movie theatre, etc.), so gets the profit from sales made in them.
Increased "worker satisfaction" (including happiness in not having to
travel long commutes) can also lead to higher productivity withint the
business work itself.
In ye olde days it used to be mainly mining companies (especially coal
mining in the UK), but it has worked for some others too (e.g.
Cadbury's Bournville village).
I hadn't thought of this earlier but it reminds me of the Chinese
factories where they have dormitories for many of the workers. So you
have places like the Foxconn complex in Zhengzhou, China that employs
over 300,000 people. Many of whom live in the dormitories in the
complex.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-factory-foxconn-china-photos-tour-2018-5
The Horny Goat
2021-10-12 06:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:15:05 -0400, shawn
Post by Your Name
In ye olde days it used to be mainly mining companies (especially coal
mining in the UK), but it has worked for some others too (e.g.
Cadbury's Bournville village).
Well hopefully these miners' homes in the era you're talking about are
/ were better than the hellholes described in George Orwell's The Road
to Wigan Pier in the 1930s.

Even amongst the "wealthier" homes he describes there's not much that
would appeal to me or anybody I know in the 2020s.
Your Name
2021-10-12 20:33:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:15:05 -0400, shawn
Post by Your Name
In ye olde days it used to be mainly mining companies (especially coal
mining in the UK), but it has worked for some others too (e.g.
Cadbury's Bournville village).
Well hopefully these miners' homes in the era you're talking about are
/ were better than the hellholes described in George Orwell's The Road
to Wigan Pier in the 1930s.
Like any business, it depends on the selfishness and greediness of the
owners and management. Some of them no doubt were hell holes and slums,
while others even included things like free hospital care or allowing
retired wokers to remain living in the company's house for the rest of
their lives.
Post by The Horny Goat
Even amongst the "wealthier" homes he describes there's not much that
would appeal to me or anybody I know in the 2020s.
That's largely because the human race has become lazier and greedier
... do you really *need* gimmicks like "smart" curtains that open and
close when you talk to a AI assistant, no of course not, but many fools
apparently want them anyway.
BTR1701
2021-10-11 23:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.h
tml
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
shawn
2021-10-12 00:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.h
tml
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL? Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
It may be the only way to fix the housing problem they are
experiencing. There just enough land around for everyone to own a home
and have a convenient drive to work. At least with apartments it's
more likely for people to have both a place of their own and not spend
hours commuting to and from work. Though ideally that would be managed
by the local municipal governments.
BTR1701
2021-10-12 00:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives
outside of congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers
should pay less than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Why is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers
have already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual
tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
It may be the only way to fix the housing problem they are
experiencing.
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Post by shawn
There just enough land around for everyone to own a home
and have a convenient drive to work.
Then they either have an inconvenient drive to work or they rent an
apartment closer to their job that's properly zoned for it.
suzeeq
2021-10-12 00:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives
outside of congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers
should pay less than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Why is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers
have already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual
tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
It may be the only way to fix the housing problem they are
experiencing.
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
There just enough land around for everyone to own a home
and have a convenient drive to work.
Then they either have an inconvenient drive to work or they rent an
apartment closer to their job that's properly zoned for it.
shawn
2021-10-12 02:11:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives
outside of congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers
should pay less than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Why is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers
have already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual
tithe?
If we only had combustion based vehicles I would agree with you but
with the introduction of electric vehicles something will have to
change as the fuel taxes that pay for maintaining those roads don't
impact electric vehicles. With the apparent push to get us on into
electric vehicles within our lifetimes that's going to be an issue.
They don't even want you in electric cars. The stated goal of the
'progressives' in California is to eliminate the personally-owned
vehicle altogether and have everyone walking or riding bikes and using
buses and commuter trains for any longer trips.
That doesn't work well when given the construction of our cities.
Unless California plans to tear down and rebuild all of their major
cities I don't see how they expect this to work. Hell look at the way
San Francisco home owners insist that no one can build any sort of
apartment complex nearby for fear of the impact on their home value.
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
It may be the only way to fix the housing problem they are
experiencing.
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
There just enough land around for everyone to own a home
and have a convenient drive to work.
Then they either have an inconvenient drive to work or they rent an
apartment closer to their job that's properly zoned for it.
From what I can tell that doesn't even seem to exist in San Francisco.
Not so sure about Los Angeles. At least not in numbers sufficient to
even come close to meeting the demand. From what I can tell the
problem in SFO is that there are few areas zoned for apartments.
Ideally you would have such a zone either intermixed with commercial
zones or located nearby but that doesn't seem to be the case there.
Here in the Atlanta area it's just about all mixed use so you get
apartment complexes located near residential neighborhoods which are
located near commercial areas. So, if people are willing and able to
move, no one needs to have an hour or more commute time. Though many
do (or at least did before Covid) due to traffic and changing jobs
while not wanting to move.
trotsky
2021-10-12 11:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
Oh my fucking God you've even forced hall monitor suzee to chime in.
Well played asshole.
BTR1701
2021-10-12 16:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
suzeeq
2021-10-12 19:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.

Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.

No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.

This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
shawn
2021-10-12 19:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
Your Name
2021-10-12 20:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown,
the previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods
are emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
The cost of housing is partly due to the "investment" scum who go
around buying up houses to either rent out or do a quick "flip"
(sometimes without even making any improvements), either way it's to
their own greedy profit.

The first house my parents bought here in New Zealand nearly 50 years
ago cost them something like NZ$35,000, brand new and built for them.
They sold that house years ago when they moved to a newer one. It was
bought by a "investor" who rented it out to various tennants over the
years. It was up for sale a couple of months ago and my mother went to
look around - very little had been changed in the last 30+ years, but
it sold for just under NZ$1million, and will probably be torn down and
replaced by two houses or a few apartments ... again at a profit.
BTR1701
2021-10-13 02:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown,
the previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods
are emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
The cost of housing is partly due to the "investment" scum who go
around buying up houses to either rent out or do a quick "flip"
(sometimes without even making any improvements), either way it's to
their own greedy profit.
Why is making a profit 'greedy'? Isn't that the point of all business?
Post by Your Name
The first house my parents bought here in New Zealand nearly 50 years
ago cost them something like NZ$35,000, brand new and built for them.
They sold that house years ago when they moved to a newer one. It was
bought by a "investor" who rented it out to various tennants over the
years.
And that's bad because?

It was up for sale a couple of months ago and my mother went to
Post by Your Name
look around - very little had been changed in the last 30+ years, but
it sold for just under NZ$1million, and will probably be torn down and
replaced by two houses or a few apartments ... again at a profit.
And that's bad because?
BTR1701
2021-10-13 02:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing
LOL! The vagrant problem in L.A. has nothing to do with 'affordable
housing'. These aren't accountants and secretaries and office managers who
hit a rough patch and are now living under a freeway bridge rolling around
in their own filth. These are hard core drug addicts and mental patients,
many of whom have no idea what planet they're even on. Dropping one of them
into a free apartment does exactly nothing to address their problems. All
it does is enrich developers and waste a metric shit-ton of taxpayer
dollars.

Besides, most of the vagrants don't even *want* housing. When the city of
Santa Ana was ordered by a federal court to clean the vagrants out of its
riverbed, they offered every denizen a free motel room and guess how many
accepted... only one out of ten. They *like* living on the streets, doing
their drugs where there are no rules. The weather in California is great,
after all. No freezing winters or summers full of thunderstorms and
floods.

If 90% of the vagrants are refusing *free* housing when it's offered,
pretending that the solution to the post-apocalyptic hellscape lining the
city streets is 'affordable housing' is delusional.
anim8rfsk
2021-10-13 04:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing
LOL! The vagrant problem in L.A. has nothing to do with 'affordable
housing'. These aren't accountants and secretaries and office managers who
hit a rough patch and are now living under a freeway bridge rolling around
in their own filth. These are hard core drug addicts and mental patients,
many of whom have no idea what planet they're even on. Dropping one of them
into a free apartment does exactly nothing to address their problems. All
it does is enrich developers and waste a metric shit-ton of taxpayer
dollars.
Besides, most of the vagrants don't even *want* housing. When the city of
Santa Ana was ordered by a federal court to clean the vagrants out of its
riverbed, they offered every denizen a free motel room and guess how many
accepted... only one out of ten. They *like* living on the streets, doing
their drugs where there are no rules. The weather in California is great,
after all. No freezing winters or summers full of thunderstorms and
floods.
If 90% of the vagrants are refusing *free* housing when it's offered,
pretending that the solution to the post-apocalyptic hellscape lining the
city streets is 'affordable housing' is delusional.
How do people not remember that public housing just doesn’t work? The
tenants tear the places down around themselves.

Note the group trying to get it going again has “socialist” right in their
name

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/public-housing-fundamentally-flawed/602515/


“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”
BTR1701
2021-10-13 04:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate
change' and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include
Jerry Brown, the previous governor, believe single-family
residential neighborhoods are emblematic of the evils of capitalism,
systemic racism, and global warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
No I meant your belief is BS. Many places outside CA are considering
rezoning some areas in their towns to allow more multifamily and less
single family residences. It has nothing to do with politics, and
everything to do with affordable housing.
Spokane county had maybe a 1.5% vacancy rate in rentals before the
pandemic. Now there's even less rentals available at what low midrange
income people can afford. Many have seen their rents go up several
hundred dollars, or double or triple what they were. Houses have
increased up to $100K in price, if you can find one.
No. Idaho is similar. My small town is looking at rezoning light
industrial to medium density residential. It was originally zone LI
several years ago in the hope of attracting manufacturing, which didn't
materialize. There are debates over juat what affordable housing is when
a lot of households make less than $50-60K per year. It sure isn't the
median price of $400-600K for a house that might have sold a few years
ago for $200K. A lot of businesses (not just restaurants and small
shops) have hired out of the area candidates only to have them turn down
the job when they went looking for housing.
This is all due to people fleeing larger cities and buying up property
to live in, or investing in income property which raises the rents to
levels never seen here.
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing
LOL! The vagrant problem in L.A. has nothing to do with 'affordable
housing'. These aren't accountants and secretaries and office managers who
hit a rough patch and are now living under a freeway bridge rolling around
in their own filth. These are hard core drug addicts and mental patients,
many of whom have no idea what planet they're even on. Dropping one of them
into a free apartment does exactly nothing to address their problems. All
it does is enrich developers and waste a metric shit-ton of taxpayer
dollars.
Besides, most of the vagrants don't even *want* housing. When the city of
Santa Ana was ordered by a federal court to clean the vagrants out of its
riverbed, they offered every denizen a free motel room and guess how many
accepted... only one out of ten. They *like* living on the streets, doing
their drugs where there are no rules. The weather in California is great,
after all. No freezing winters or oppresively hot summers full of
thunderstorms and floods.
If 90% of the vagrants are refusing *free* housing when it's offered,
pretending that the solution to the post-apocalyptic hellscape lining
the city streets is 'affordable housing' is delusional.
How do people not remember that public housing just doesn't work? The
tenants tear the places down around themselves.
Absolutely. The "bridge house" that Garcetti and Bonin brought to what
used to be a beautiful neighborhood in Venice-- a brand new
multi-million taxpayer dollar facility-- now looks like something from
the streets of Mogadishu. The ferals have completely destroyed it and it
now is nothing but a shell that they use to smoke their meth and inject
their heroin in and store all the loot they've stolen from the residents
of the surrounding neighborhoods.
trotsky
2021-10-13 09:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
If 90% of the vagrants are refusing *free* housing when it's offered,
pretending that the solution to the post-apocalyptic hellscape lining the
city streets is 'affordable housing' is delusional.
How do people not remember that public housing just doesn’t work? The
tenants tear the places down around themselves.
To quote you, go fuck yourself asshole.
The Horny Goat
2021-10-13 16:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:55:06 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
Well there are always going to be those who claim camping in parks is
their right but that doesn't mean society generally has to accommodate
them. It is particularly so if these folks also demand complete
anarchy meaning the ability to do whatever they like in the parks such
as doing drugs and even more importantly leaving their needles etc. on
the ground for kids and dogs to "find".

Frankly I care more about what the distorted housing market is doing
to my early 30-something kids who ought to but can't expect to own a
place of their own at this stage of life. In our area there is
widespread use of housing not for housing but for laundering $$$ and
we have a situation where 40-45% of our condo stock is unoccupied held
as "investments" either by the launderers or offshore interests or
"owned" by 20 year old students mostly with offshore connections. (Who
may or may not actually be studying)
shawn
2021-10-13 18:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:55:06 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
Well there are always going to be those who claim camping in parks is
their right but that doesn't mean society generally has to accommodate
them. It is particularly so if these folks also demand complete
anarchy meaning the ability to do whatever they like in the parks such
as doing drugs and even more importantly leaving their needles etc. on
the ground for kids and dogs to "find".
Frankly I care more about what the distorted housing market is doing
to my early 30-something kids who ought to but can't expect to own a
place of their own at this stage of life. In our area there is
widespread use of housing not for housing but for laundering $$$ and
we have a situation where 40-45% of our condo stock is unoccupied held
as "investments" either by the launderers or offshore interests or
"owned" by 20 year old students mostly with offshore connections. (Who
may or may not actually be studying)
Yeah, this seems to be happening everywhere. It's even somewhat of an
issue locally but nothing like people are seeing in
Toronto/Vancouver/San Francisco. Not sure when/if it will break or if
it's going to take government interference to get back to something
people can begin to afford. It's reaching a point where even apartment
rent is beginning to creep up at much faster rates.
anim8rfsk
2021-10-13 19:59:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:55:06 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
Well there are always going to be those who claim camping in parks is
their right but that doesn't mean society generally has to accommodate
them. It is particularly so if these folks also demand complete
anarchy meaning the ability to do whatever they like in the parks such
as doing drugs and even more importantly leaving their needles etc. on
the ground for kids and dogs to "find".
Frankly I care more about what the distorted housing market is doing
to my early 30-something kids who ought to but can't expect to own a
place of their own at this stage of life. In our area there is
widespread use of housing not for housing but for laundering $$$ and
we have a situation where 40-45% of our condo stock is unoccupied held
as "investments" either by the launderers or offshore interests or
"owned" by 20 year old students mostly with offshore connections. (Who
may or may not actually be studying)
Yeah, this seems to be happening everywhere. It's even somewhat of an
issue locally but nothing like people are seeing in
Toronto/Vancouver/San Francisco. Not sure when/if it will break or if
it's going to take government interference to get back to something
people can begin to afford. It's reaching a point where even apartment
rent is beginning to creep up at much faster rates.
Out of morbid curiosity I clicked a Facebook link to an ad for senior
living apartments a couple days ago. Modest size units were going for five
or $6000 a month!


“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”
suzeeq
2021-10-13 22:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:55:06 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Sadly this is the sort of thing that seems to be happening everywhere.
BTR's response is exactly the sort of thing I was bringing up in SFO
example. Hell, BTR complains daily about the problems with the
homeless in LA but when an idea is brought up that might help relieve
the problem like building more affordable housing the standard
complaint is about what it might do to home values. Never mind what
the homeless situated all over the city does to property values. (Yes,
I'm sure some would refuse any housing offered but not all.)
Well there are always going to be those who claim camping in parks is
their right but that doesn't mean society generally has to accommodate
them. It is particularly so if these folks also demand complete
anarchy meaning the ability to do whatever they like in the parks such
as doing drugs and even more importantly leaving their needles etc. on
the ground for kids and dogs to "find".
Frankly I care more about what the distorted housing market is doing
to my early 30-something kids who ought to but can't expect to own a
place of their own at this stage of life. In our area there is
widespread use of housing not for housing but for laundering $$$ and
we have a situation where 40-45% of our condo stock is unoccupied held
as "investments" either by the launderers or offshore interests or
"owned" by 20 year old students mostly with offshore connections. (Who
may or may not actually be studying)
Yeah, this seems to be happening everywhere. It's even somewhat of an
issue locally but nothing like people are seeing in
Toronto/Vancouver/San Francisco. Not sure when/if it will break or if
it's going to take government interference to get back to something
people can begin to afford. It's reaching a point where even apartment
rent is beginning to creep up at much faster rates.
Out of morbid curiosity I clicked a Facebook link to an ad for senior
living apartments a couple days ago. Modest size units were going for five
or $6000 a month!
That usually includes meals. But even regular apartments are outrageous
compared to two or three years ago.

The Horny Goat
2021-10-13 16:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by suzeeq
Post by BTR1701
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life, wrapped up in 'climate change'
and 'racial equity' slogans. These zealots-- to include Jerry Brown, the
previous governor, believe single-family residential neighborhoods are
emblematic of the evils of capitalism, systemic racism, and global
warming and need to be done away with.
Oh Bullshit!
I agree, it is bullshit. But Brown and his legislative acolytes don't
hide it. They openly say so.
Which would be fine if they believed in
'equality of opportunity' as opposed to what they actually do believe
which is the pernicious doctrine of 'equality of results'.
trotsky
2021-10-12 11:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
They're taking care of that, too. Newsom just sighed two bills that
strip local governments of zoning power and gives it to the state
legislature so that they can more easily wage their war on suburbia and
single family homes. They want to eliminate the zoning for single-family
homes and give developers the ability to buy up lots in residential
neighborhoods and build apartment buildings on them, up to 10 stories
high.
It may be the only way to fix the housing problem they are
experiencing.
It's not a 'housing problem'. It's a quasi-religious crusade against
capitalism and the American way of life,
No, that's not correct. Would you like to guess again?
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-11 17:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.
Electrics never should have been treated differently. There's nothing
environmentally sound about them. They still take up land for parking,
unless the George Jetson folding flying car model is available.
Well, there's parking garages, most of which are private property. The
garage takes up the land whether any cars are in it or not, and since
it's on private land, it's none of the government's business whether
cars are being parked on it or not.
You don't get to tell government what isn't government's business.

Please don't feign being unaware of building and zoning codes. Parking
garages are typically built to comply with off-street parking
thresholds, which are in municipal code or waivers.

I say there should be no off-street parking thresholds in code, that the
marketplace should decide. Then we'd get a different mix of land values.

Such codes are a poor predictor of demand. Note how many empty parking
spots you see.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.
There would also have to be some exemption for vehicles that are never
driven on the public roads at all. Many rural farm and ranch owners own
pickups and other vehicles that never leave their private property. Some
of those ranches in Texas are almost the size of Rhode Island-- they
have whole fleets of such vehicles. I'm sure there are similar
situations in California. An owner of a vehicle that is never operated
on public roads is not required to have it insured, nor do they even
need a driver license to drive it, so they shouldn't have to be paying
mileage taxes on them either.
Currently they are allowed to use untaxed gasoline if the farm owner has
his own fuel tank and they don't fill up at a gas station.
I should note that if off-road vehicles are filled at service stations,
there is a refundable refund of the federal portion of the motor fuel
excise tax by attaching a schedule to your annual income tax return.
There is also a way to get the state tax refunded. Generally, people
forgot or can't be bothered to claim these refunds of taxes they weren't
subject to.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.
I have no idea what you've come up with that won't tell the gubmint your
origin, route, and destination for the purpose of administering a tax.
Maybe it can't be done. In which case, I come back to the government
learning to live within its means as the preferable solution to adding
yet more taxes to pay for something they should have already been doing
*before* giving illegal aliens free lawyers at taxpayer expense.
If government built a transportation facility, it's perfectly reasonable
to maintain it with a combination of taxes and user fees. That has
nothing to do with "living within its means". It has to do with taxes
and fees should fall proportionately on those who benefit and not fall
upon those who don't.

And yeah, there should be immigration lawyers to represent asylum
seekers but that has not to do with whether government should be
maintaining infrastructure.
Post by BTR1701
The actual solution is for the state to just accept that in a free
society, some things just ought not to be done by the government, and if
the government is in financial straits, maybe it should stop assuming
it's always entitled to more, more, more and do what all the rest of us
do with a limited amount of money to play with: prioritize spending on
necessaries and jettison the luxuries.
The only luxuries I am aware of are government benefits that go to other
people and not me because the government picks winners and losers and
won't leave it to the marketplace.
Post by BTR1701
So, for example, if the state doesn't have enough money to fix the roads
(a basic function of government, hence a necessary),
Again: You started with a false premise. There's plenty of money to fix
infrastructure -- roads, bridge, transit, railroad, maritime, airports
-- if only those who benefit from infrastructure pay for it or at least
pay a proportionate share of it.

You simply don't treat it like social spending.

We actually can't afford not to do it as infrastructure in poor
condition or completely unusable hurts the economy.
Post by BTR1701
then it should cut
some luxuries-- i.e., spending millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to
contest perfectly legitimate and constitutional federal immigration
actions. Or get rid of the "Deputy Provost for Inclusion and Diversity"
that can be found at every state and local college and university these
days, all of whom are taking $300K/yr in salary and whose departments
are sucking up millions of tax dollars each. I could go on all day
listing 'luxuries' that we can easily do without, certainly if the
alternative is a literally Orwellian citizen tracking program that
documents one's every move so the government can
(1) dig in their pockets some more and
(2) engage in social engineering projects that are none of its business
in the first place and
(3) charge me thousands of dollars for driving my own car on vacation
outside of California where it's not entitled to tax revenue.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Because there is a demand component. Second and third shift workers who
commute during off hours should pay a lot less as they drive during
congestion-free periods.
Post by BTR1701
Why
is the assumption that one's use of the roads-- which taxpayers have
already paid for and already own-- be subject to a continual tithe?
You reject the Georgist position that roads and other infrastructure are
a major component of land value and that all government services can be
paid out of the annual rent of land value.

You've never agreed with my arguments here.

There could be an argument that infrastructure should be charged to both
demand from users, for the market cost of building facilities to meet
peak demand, and to land, to reflect that land has value due to being
well served (or poorly served) by infrastructure.
BTR1701
2021-10-11 18:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.
Electrics never should have been treated differently. There's nothing
environmentally sound about them. They still take up land for parking,
unless the George Jetson folding flying car model is available.
Well, there's parking garages, most of which are private property. The
garage takes up the land whether any cars are in it or not, and since
it's on private land, it's none of the government's business whether
cars are being parked on it or not.
You don't get to tell government what isn't government's business.
Yeah, I do. The government works for me, not the other way around.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.
I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.
I have no idea what you've come up with that won't tell the gubmint your
origin, route, and destination for the purpose of administering a tax.
Maybe it can't be done. In which case, I come back to the government
learning to live within its means as the preferable solution to adding
yet more taxes to pay for something they should have already been doing
*before* giving illegal aliens free lawyers at taxpayer expense.
If government built a transportation facility, it's perfectly reasonable
to maintain it with a combination of taxes and user fees. That has
nothing to do with "living within its means".
It sure does have to do with living within its means, when the state
government continually does a bait-and-switch by raising taxes with the
stated intent that the money will go to maintain the roads and bridges,
then months later after the taxes pass, you find out they're spending
that money on giving illegals free health care or LGBTQ+%^@! awareness
or little vagrant shacks at $700,000 each or something ridiculous. And
the roads never get fixed, which leads them to plead poverty and another
round of tax-raising with the pretense that it will go to the roads, and
around and around we go.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
And yeah, there should be immigration lawyers to represent asylum
seekers but that has not to do with whether government should be
maintaining infrastructure.
Whether there should be free immigration lawyers isn't the issue.
Immigration is federal jurisdiction. Immigration courts are federal
courts. If the illegals need lawyers, it's up to the federal government
to provide them, not the state of California.

If I arrested you for counterfeiting currency and took you to federal
court, your PD wouldn't be paid for by the state of Illinois. It would
come from the federal government.

Yet here in California, we're spending hundreds millions for the state
to provide an illegal alien public defenders office for the federal
government.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
The actual solution is for the state to just accept that in a free
society, some things just ought not to be done by the government, and if
the government is in financial straits, maybe it should stop assuming
it's always entitled to more, more, more and do what all the rest of us
do with a limited amount of money to play with: prioritize spending on
necessaries and jettison the luxuries.
The only luxuries I am aware of are government benefits that go to other
people and not me because the government picks winners and losers and
won't leave it to the marketplace.
Well, I listed a few down below, so now you're aware of some others.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So, for example, if the state doesn't have enough money to fix the roads
(a basic function of government, hence a necessary),
Again: You started with a false premise. There's plenty of money to fix
infrastructure -- roads, bridge, transit, railroad, maritime, airports
-- if only those who benefit from infrastructure pay for it or at least
pay a proportionate share of it.
We already have-- through massive tax increases to pay for road repair
that the government immediately redirects to other social justicey
things it would rather spend the money on. Fixing a bridge just doesn't
get them the woke cred they desperately thirst for.

And even the money they *do* spend on infrastructure doesn't go to road
repair or expansion. They gave 10 million illegals driver licenses and
rather than build new roads and freeways or expand current ones to
handle the massive increase in drivers, they're spending transportation
money on buying new bus fleets (even though no one but vagrants ride the
ones we currently have) and shutting down lanes on the roads we already
have and turning them over to bicycles (which go completely unused).
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
then it should cut
some luxuries-- i.e., spending millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to
contest perfectly legitimate and constitutional federal immigration
actions. Or get rid of the "Deputy Provost for Inclusion and Diversity"
that can be found at every state and local college and university these
days, all of whom are taking $300K/yr in salary and whose departments
are sucking up millions of tax dollars each. I could go on all day
listing 'luxuries' that we can easily do without, certainly if the
alternative is a literally Orwellian citizen tracking program that
documents one's every move so the government can
(1) dig in their pockets some more and
(2) engage in social engineering projects that are none of its business
in the first place and
(3) charge me thousands of dollars for driving my own car on vacation
outside of California where it's not entitled to tax revenue.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Because there is a demand component. Second and third shift workers who
commute during off hours should pay a lot less as they drive during
congestion-free periods.
Why? Everyone's already paying for road maintenance in their taxes. But
if those taxes weren't enough (and assuming the government isn't
stealing it to pay for other things, as they do in reality), then they
should have made the original appropriation bill larger to cover all
actual costs, not low-ball it for political expedience, then come around
on the back end and throw up a government tracking panopticon that
monitors the movements of every citizen so thoroughly even Orwell
couldn't have imagined it in order to make up the shortfall.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-11 19:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
And despite an *automatic* statutory increase in the gas tax every July
1, the greedy pigs in Sacramento still want more money and they want to
make sure they dig in the pockets of the electric/hybrid drivers along
with everyone else, so they're proposing a per-mile tax. They'll read
your odometer every year and charge you based on how many miles you've
driven, so it won't matter what kind of fuel your car uses, you'll get
hit no matter what.
Electrics never should have been treated differently. There's nothing
environmentally sound about them. They still take up land for parking,
unless the George Jetson folding flying car model is available.
Well, there's parking garages, most of which are private property. The
garage takes up the land whether any cars are in it or not, and since
it's on private land, it's none of the government's business whether
cars are being parked on it or not.
You don't get to tell government what isn't government's business.
Yeah, I do. The government works for me, not the other way around.
Hah! Isn't Tax Freedom Day something like July 17th now?

You're not wealthy enough not to pay taxes.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
I don't actually have a problem with a flat mileage tax-- as long as it
*replaces* the gas tax and isn't just heaped on top of it (which is a
pipe dream). And so long as there's a mechanism to sort out miles driven
out of state. I don't want to be paying CA state taxes on that family
vacation drive to Miami and back, whose miles could easily form the bulk
of my entire year's worth of driving.
I only start to have major problems when they add in a GPS element so
they can do the social engineering projects they love so much, because
this mileage tax idea has given the 'progressives' an opportunity for
what they want the most: the ability to control people. They want to tie
in your car's GPS and allow the system to detect where you are at all
times so the state can charge you more per mile based on when and where
you're driving.
I have no idea what you've come up with that won't tell the gubmint your
origin, route, and destination for the purpose of administering a tax.
Maybe it can't be done. In which case, I come back to the government
learning to live within its means as the preferable solution to adding
yet more taxes to pay for something they should have already been doing
*before* giving illegal aliens free lawyers at taxpayer expense.
If government built a transportation facility, it's perfectly reasonable
to maintain it with a combination of taxes and user fees. That has
nothing to do with "living within its means".
It sure does have to do with living within its means, when the state
government continually does a bait-and-switch by raising taxes with the
stated intent that the money will go to maintain the roads and bridges,
then months later after the taxes pass, you find out they're spending
or little vagrant shacks at $700,000 each or something ridiculous. And
the roads never get fixed, which leads them to plead poverty and another
round of tax-raising with the pretense that it will go to the roads, and
around and around we go.
Government spending is a combination of site-specific benefit and
societal benefit. The point I'm trying to make is that the site-specific
benefit, like infrastructure, should be charged proportionate to the
benefit.

Let's say the social spending purpose of all taxes was stated up front
and there were no mixing of taxes. That might be government living
within its means but it sure as hell wouldn't be fair.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
And yeah, there should be immigration lawyers to represent asylum
seekers but that has not to do with whether government should be
maintaining infrastructure.
Whether there should be free immigration lawyers isn't the issue.
Immigration is federal jurisdiction. Immigration courts are federal
courts. If the illegals need lawyers, it's up to the federal government
to provide them, not the state of California. . . .
Ah. I didn't realize you were discussing local government providing
immigration lawyers and not the federal government. We've started to do
that around here as well.

I agree with your point here.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
The actual solution is for the state to just accept that in a free
society, some things just ought not to be done by the government, and if
the government is in financial straits, maybe it should stop assuming
it's always entitled to more, more, more and do what all the rest of us
do with a limited amount of money to play with: prioritize spending on
necessaries and jettison the luxuries.
The only luxuries I am aware of are government benefits that go to other
people and not me because the government picks winners and losers and
won't leave it to the marketplace.
Well, I listed a few down below, so now you're aware of some others.
Heh. If I don't receive the benefit, then it's a luxury society can do
without!
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So, for example, if the state doesn't have enough money to fix the roads
(a basic function of government, hence a necessary),
Again: You started with a false premise. There's plenty of money to fix
infrastructure -- roads, bridge, transit, railroad, maritime, airports
-- if only those who benefit from infrastructure pay for it or at least
pay a proportionate share of it.
We already have-- through massive tax increases to pay for road repair
that the government immediately redirects to other social justicey
things it would rather spend the money on. Fixing a bridge just doesn't
get them the woke cred they desperately thirst for.
I don't think we disagree here.
Post by BTR1701
And even the money they *do* spend on infrastructure doesn't go to road
repair or expansion.
I have a real problem with road expansion, which always seems to be at
the expense of road repair. It's why I argue that motor fuel excise
taxes aren't true user fees, but choosing winners and losers even if the
taxes aren't diverted to social spending.
Post by BTR1701
They gave 10 million illegals driver licenses and
rather than build new roads and freeways or expand current ones to
handle the massive increase in drivers, they're spending transportation
money on buying new bus fleets (even though no one but vagrants ride the
ones we currently have) and shutting down lanes on the roads we already
have and turning them over to bicycles (which go completely unused).
All drivers should be licensed and subject to the same laws about
carrying liability insurance and that shouldn't be related to federal
immigration status. There shouldn't be uninsured motorists at all.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
then it should cut
some luxuries-- i.e., spending millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to
contest perfectly legitimate and constitutional federal immigration
actions. Or get rid of the "Deputy Provost for Inclusion and Diversity"
that can be found at every state and local college and university these
days, all of whom are taking $300K/yr in salary and whose departments
are sucking up millions of tax dollars each. I could go on all day
listing 'luxuries' that we can easily do without, certainly if the
alternative is a literally Orwellian citizen tracking program that
documents one's every move so the government can
(1) dig in their pockets some more and
(2) engage in social engineering projects that are none of its business
in the first place and
(3) charge me thousands of dollars for driving my own car on vacation
outside of California where it's not entitled to tax revenue.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
So that daily commute into downtown? They'll jack the cost of those
miles through the roof to economically force you out of your car and
onto one of the vomit-strewn and gang-infested city buses, which will
take you two to three times as long to get you where you're going,
assuming you even survive the experience.
It should be demand-sensitive. Why should someone who drives outside of
congested places or times pay as much? Rural drivers should pay less
than city drivers as there is no rush hour.
Why should someone who drives to work every day have to pay AT ALL?
Because there is a demand component. Second and third shift workers who
commute during off hours should pay a lot less as they drive during
congestion-free periods.
Why? Everyone's already paying for road maintenance in their taxes.
If there is a 7-lane county highway constructed, it's for rush hour
based on first-shift workers. Second- and third-shift workers could make
do with a 2-lane highway at the hours they travel.
Post by BTR1701
But if those taxes weren't enough (and assuming the government isn't
stealing it to pay for other things, as they do in reality), then they
should have made the original appropriation bill larger to cover all
actual costs, not low-ball it for political expedience, then come around
on the back end and throw up a government tracking panopticon that
monitors the movements of every citizen so thoroughly even Orwell
couldn't have imagined it in order to make up the shortfall.
Of course I'm going to agree with your truth-in-budgeting argument.
trotsky
2021-10-10 08:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
I find this fascinating, like watching monkeys at the zoo. When you say
"abruptly cancelled" what were the other choices?
moviePig
2021-10-10 13:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
I find this fascinating, like watching monkeys at the zoo.  When you say
"abruptly cancelled" what were the other choices?
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles? And weren't they apparently successful
at that? (Rhetorical questions, unless the answer is 'No'...)
moviePig
2021-10-10 18:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what? They're all lanes that offer increased speed...
BTR1701
2021-10-10 21:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
moviePig
2021-10-10 22:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
BTR1701
2021-10-10 22:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.

But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-11 00:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Dimensional Traveler
2021-10-11 01:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a freeway?
HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as "HOV".
Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
The Horny Goat
2021-10-11 01:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 18:04:52 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a freeway?
HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as "HOV".
Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
That is certainly the way of things in our area.

There WAS a proposal to take a lane of traffic to run transit trains
down the middle but that never materialized presumably on the cost of
building stations with overhead (or under the roadway - in Hong Kong
those are called 'subways' which confused the hell out of me my first
time there)

I mentioned Hong Kong - nearly all their subway stations are built as
part of highrise residential or business centers and inevitably have a
minimum of 3 floors of car parking plus a significant taxi stand.
Your Name
2021-10-11 02:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a
freeway? HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as
"HOV". Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
Yep. Same here in New Zealand. They change an existing lane into HOV or
bus lane, and then wonder why the traffic congestion gets worse. :-\

A few years ago they introduced ridiculous traffic lights on the
motorway on-ramps*, often a double lane that then narrows down to a
single lane to enter the motorway. Many of them have an additional lane
for buses, trucks, and electric cars to by-pass the traffic lights ...
the problem is that they also narrow down to the same single lane, so
still end up waiting anyway, albeit further up the queue.


* Supposedly these silly lights are meant to be used when the motorway
is busy to allow it to keep flowing freely. The lights allow one car
through followed by a brief red light to pause the next ... but they're
on all day, never actually achieved anything except cause more clogging
on the normal roads leading up to the motorway on-ramps with queuing
cars.
BTR1701
2021-10-11 03:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a
freeway? HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as
"HOV". Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
Yep. Same here in New Zealand. They change an existing lane into HOV or
bus lane, and then wonder why the traffic congestion gets worse. :-\
A few years ago they introduced ridiculous traffic lights on the
motorway on-ramps*, often a double lane that then narrows down to a
single lane to enter the motorway. Many of them have an additional lane
for buses, trucks, and electric cars to by-pass the traffic lights ...
the problem is that they also narrow down to the same single lane, so
still end up waiting anyway, albeit further up the queue.
* Supposedly these silly lights are meant to be used when the motorway
is busy to allow it to keep flowing freely. The lights allow one car
through followed by a brief red light to pause the next ... but they're
on all day, never actually achieved anything except cause more clogging
on the normal roads leading up to the motorway on-ramps with queuing
cars.
We have those too. As you say, they're useless, so I ignore them.
They're the one red light you can run fully confident that you won't hit
anyone or cause a wreck, and it's pretty much impossible for a cop car
to set up to enforce it without blocking a good portion of the on-ramp
and creating a hazard out of himself. So I just treat those lights as if
they're not even there.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-11 03:36:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a
freeway? HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as
"HOV". Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
Yep. Same here in New Zealand. They change an existing lane into HOV or
bus lane, and then wonder why the traffic congestion gets worse. :-\
A few years ago they introduced ridiculous traffic lights on the
motorway on-ramps*, often a double lane that then narrows down to a
single lane to enter the motorway. Many of them have an additional lane
for buses, trucks, and electric cars to by-pass the traffic lights ...
the problem is that they also narrow down to the same single lane, so
still end up waiting anyway, albeit further up the queue.
* Supposedly these silly lights are meant to be used when the motorway
is busy to allow it to keep flowing freely. The lights allow one car
through followed by a brief red light to pause the next ... but they're
on all day, never actually achieved anything except cause more clogging
on the normal roads leading up to the motorway on-ramps with queuing
cars.
We have those too. As you say, they're useless, so I ignore them.
They're the one red light you can run fully confident that you won't hit
anyone or cause a wreck, and it's pretty much impossible for a cop car
to set up to enforce it without blocking a good portion of the on-ramp
and creating a hazard out of himself. So I just treat those lights as if
they're not even there.
I've explained this. They're called ramp meters and were first used in
Chicago. Their purpose is to space out traffic on the entering ramp.
They are not treated like traffic lights at an intersection. They really
don't do a lot of good.
trotsky
2021-10-11 11:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly. Then, after a few years, the HOV
restriction is forgotten about.
Where are you getting the idea that an HOV lane is _added_ to a
freeway? HOV lanes are created by marking an _existing_ lane as
"HOV". Effectively removing one lane from use for 90% of vehicles.
Yep. Same here in New Zealand. They change an existing lane into HOV or
bus lane, and then wonder why the traffic congestion gets worse. :-\
A few years ago they introduced ridiculous traffic lights on the
motorway on-ramps*, often a double lane that then narrows down to a
single lane to enter the motorway. Many of them have an additional lane
for buses, trucks, and electric cars to by-pass the traffic lights ...
the problem is that they also narrow down to the same single lane, so
still end up waiting anyway, albeit further up the queue.
* Supposedly these silly lights are meant to be used when the motorway
is busy to allow it to keep flowing freely. The lights allow one car
through followed by a brief red light to pause the next ... but they're
on all day, never actually achieved anything except cause more clogging
on the normal roads leading up to the motorway on-ramps with queuing
cars.
We have those too. As you say, they're useless, so I ignore them.
They're the one red light you can run fully confident that you won't hit
anyone or cause a wreck, and it's pretty much impossible for a cop car
to set up to enforce it without blocking a good portion of the on-ramp
and creating a hazard out of himself. So I just treat those lights as if
they're not even there.
I call that dickless subversion. You're perfect for it.
BTR1701
2021-10-11 02:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered
new or used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any
road-user charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes.
To pay for that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing
an new tax for those buying newly-registered new or used petrol
and diesel cars who will have to pay extra, plus they already
pay petrol tax (or road user charges for diesel) and have to sit
in the congested lanes next to near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these
useless electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise
they've got far less money coming in, so will then introduce
some sort of electricity tax for charging cars and / or per-km
road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two
years ago, they realized that so many people were driving them
now, that the carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main
lanes, so they abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the
electric/hybrid drivers back into regular traffic with everyone
else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.
But the stated purpose of the legislation that created "high occupancy
vehicle lanes" in California had nothing to do with electric car use.
Such lanes are a scam, an excuse to add a lane to an expressway somehow
calling it environmentally friendly.
Well, with us, they didn't add any lanes. They just took the left-most
existing lane, blocked it off, and said only people running carpools
could use it.
trotsky
2021-10-11 08:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Yes, I suppose all roads regulations are in general and globally vague
sense designed to encourage vehicular behavior.
You're so right, a speed limit for example is vague as fuck.
suzeeq
2021-10-10 23:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
 From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Traffic control mostly. Those special lanes were to encourage carpooling
and have less vehicles on the road.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-10-11 00:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
 From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Traffic control mostly. Those special lanes were to encourage carpooling
and have less vehicles on the road.
It doesn't work like that. Drivers find the least congested path, then
that gets congested.
suzeeq
2021-10-11 05:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
 From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Traffic control mostly. Those special lanes were to encourage carpooling
and have less vehicles on the road.
It doesn't work like that. Drivers find the least congested path, then
that gets congested.
I've noticed. Even though I live in the sticks I've had occasion to
drive in cities. But that's what they were first promoted for.
Dimensional Traveler
2021-10-11 01:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.
More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
 From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Aren't they "fast lanes" purposed to encourage vehicular behavior?
Traffic control mostly. Those special lanes were to encourage carpooling
and have less vehicles on the road.
And failed utterly at it.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
trotsky
2021-10-11 08:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?
No, they're not 'fast lanes', they're carpool lanes, which have an
entirely different purpose.
Different from what?
From encouraging people to buy those electric hamster-mobiles.
Are you really fucking whining now about people using vehicles that burn
less fossil fuels? Why are you and "RichA" constantly phishing to be
called stupid pieces of shit?
trotsky
2021-10-10 22:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
I find this fascinating, like watching monkeys at the zoo.  When you
say "abruptly cancelled" what were the other choices?
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?  And weren't they apparently successful
at that?  (Rhetorical questions, unless the answer is 'No'...)
I thought they were called carpool lanes because they promoted carpools.
RichA
2021-10-11 01:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes. :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
I find this fascinating, like watching monkeys at the zoo. When you
say "abruptly cancelled" what were the other choices?
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles? And weren't they apparently successful
at that? (Rhetorical questions, unless the answer is 'No'...)
I thought they were called carpool lanes because they promoted carpools.
It's an attempt to strong-arm people in carpooling. What happens instead are near empty lanes while normal people languish in heavier traffic.
Irony is, it's the average CAR DRIVER paying for all of it via taxes on gas and income.
trotsky
2021-10-11 08:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by trotsky
I thought they were called carpool lanes because they promoted carpools.
It's an attempt to strong-arm people in carpooling.
Have you driven in L.A.? I have. There are traffic jams 5 or 10 miles
long. Carpooling OBVIOUSLY makes sense to anyone who isn't in cognitive
decline mentally masturbating about pretending to be an American.
moviePig
2021-10-11 02:50:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives.  More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount, don't pay any road-user
charges, and can use some of the special traffic lanes. To pay for
that, starting 1 January the Government is introducing an new tax for
those buying newly-registered new or used petrol and diesel cars who
will have to pay extra, plus they already pay petrol tax (or road user
charges for diesel) and have to sit in the congested lanes next to
near-empty special lanes.   :-\
Of course, once "everyone" has been conned into buying these useless
electric cars, the Government will suddenly realise they've got far
less money coming in, so will then introduce some sort of electricity
tax for charging cars and / or per-km road charges.
Already happened in California. They initially gave electric/hybrid
drivers the privilege of using the carpool lanes, then about two years
ago, they realized that so many people were driving them now, that the
carpool lanes were a clogged mess just like the main lanes, so they
abruptly canceled that privilege and dumped the electric/hybrid drivers
back into regular traffic with everyone else.
I find this fascinating, like watching monkeys at the zoo.  When you
say "abruptly cancelled" what were the other choices?
Weren't the fast lanes always a temporary measure to promote the
adoption of electric vehicles?  And weren't they apparently successful
at that?  (Rhetorical questions, unless the answer is 'No'...)
I thought they were called carpool lanes because they promoted carpools.
Yes, they were. My identifying them by the incentive they offer rather
than by behavior they now incentivize seems to have caused confusion.
RichA
2021-10-10 00:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount
They gave Tesla S buyers here (Canada) $14,400 incentives to buy them, paid for by middle-class tax-payers. Avg,. income of S buyers? $175,000 year.
Your Name
2021-10-10 01:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount
They gave Tesla S buyers here (Canada) $14,400 incentives to buy them,
paid for by middle-class tax-payers. Avg,. income of S buyers?
$175,000 year.
The New Zealand scam ... err, scheme tops out at a subsidy of just
under US$6,000 (it varies by car price and electric or hybrid). It only
applies for vehicles costing under ~US$55,500, they must have at least
a 3-star safety rating, and be first registered in New Zealand after 1
July, 2021 (so that includes, for example, second-hand Japanese
imports).
trotsky
2021-10-10 08:27:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount
They gave Tesla S buyers here (Canada) $14,400 incentives to buy them,
paid for by middle-class tax-payers.  Avg,. income of S buyers?
$175,000 year.
The New Zealand scam ...
Have you been checked for actual brain activity?
trotsky
2021-10-10 08:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Your Name
Expect new taxes on gasoline to pay for "green" initiatives. More
Bidenflation.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-smart-robots-nissan-intelligent.html
Already happening in New Zealand. Those buying newly-registered new or
used electric or hybrid cars get a discount
They gave Tesla S buyers here (Canada) $14,400 incentives to buy them, paid for by middle-class tax-payers. Avg,. income of S buyers? $175,000 year.
Great point, Rich. Dems say that exact same thing--the wealthy don't
need a financial break. Tax the rich as AOC had tattooed on her ass at
the Met gala. Is your mind failing to the point where you're siding
with the left wing now? Fascinating.
Loading...