COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHO’S PAYING FOR THIS SPREAD? “Ironically, it is GOVERNMENT rules and funding that promotes suburban, space-wasting development. If people had to pay every day for the cost of the roads they use, or for the government-required parking spaces (subsidized by non-car users in the prices they pay), they might think differently. Instead, the [cost] is hidden in catch-all taxes. And, after all, isn;t it a goverment regulation that these developers are trying to waive? . . . The city government, with the support of many Houstonians who see no value in an attractive city, and prefer to retreat indoors, actively makes urbanization difficult, and promotes far-flung developments with miles of expensive infrastructure at taxpayer cost.” [Marco Roberts, commenting on Apartment Building Replacing Tavern on Gray Won’t Have Any Retail, But Really Wants To Hug the Street Anyway]
Sign up for the Newsletter
If this is about taxation, then I demand my money not be spent on any useless urban parks that I will never use, some silly festivals that I don’t care about, museums that show junk and everyone pretends it’s art, property tax exemptions for churches, and so on and so on and so on.
“government-required parking spaces (subsidized by non-car users in the prices they pay)”
Are there non-car users in Houston?
There is some level of sarcasm to that question and also a reality check–the municipal powers-that-be enacted parking lot minimums to counteract the unattractive nuisance of streets becoming parking lots.
You can’t really have an absence of policies (otherwise you don’t have a city). It’s just: *which* policies do you enact?
And now that we’ve had a chance to see the results, what if anything have we learned?
Re: Adolph’s comment about “the unattractive nuisance of streets becoming parking lots” Ah yes, when I sit on the patio at Cyclone Anaya in Midtown, I am simply aghast at the view of all these parked cars on the streets! If only there were a giant parking lot instead for me to walk by (oh wait, there is, at CVS!) Street parking is beneficial in so many ways, not the least of which being that it slows down traffic to a safer speed, and makes both walking and outdoor dining more pleasant by creating a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. I never have been able to figure out why there isn’t more street parking along the major thoroughfares in Midtown. Although I confess to having enjoyed blowing down Louisiana at 50 mph many a time, I can’t say that it is necessary or should be encouraged.
The reason curb side parking slows down traffic is because it’s so dangerous … many doors (and lives) have been lost that way. All the restaurants on that block would never survive if it wasn’t for valet parking. Most customers are driving in and the residents alone in that area are not sufficient to sustain those businesses.
as long as we all agree that it’s long past time for gax taxes go up
Why is it time for gas taxes to go up?
The purpose of taxes is to fund the government. The purpose of the government is to provide the most basic of common services. I’d have to say that the current rate of taxation more than amply provides for that. If I didn’t know better I’d swear you intend to use taxes as a means to force your personal agenda upon the rest of us.
Yes to commuter tax.
Yes to finally raising gas tax.
Yes to infill.
Even if gas goes to $10 per gallon, I will still drive, but more likely I’ll buy a Tesla Model S and charge it at night for 3.5 cents per Kw with a smart meter/charger.
I think it depends on your definition of what is an acceptable basic level of services. If a third world level of funding of public education and a healthcare system that excludes about 20% of the population is acceptable to you then yes, I would say we have an adequate level of taxation.
Of course I would also be interested to know what part of “the general welfare of the United States” you believe limits government spending to the “most basic level of common services”.
….collective eye roll….
Comrade, Jimbo
There is a system that takes care of 100% of people’s needs, their healthcare, their education and their retirements … it’s been tried and is a miserable failure (USSR, North Korea, even China is phasing it out)
Ideology is great but when it’s time to write the check that’s where the problem crops up, math does not work.
…would like to join in the collective eye roll…
Ah yes, the bipolar all or nothing argument. As we have discovered in so many other discussions there is clearly never any room for a middle ground.
Texas has a 63% high school graduation rate. If that’s good enough for you then great. Just remember that the unemployment rate for those who drop out of high school is over 15%. The unemployment rate for those with a Bachelor’s degree is less than 5%. Would you rather pay for those folks once they’re unemployed, uneducated and uninsured or would you rather invest in them whilst they’re at school. Either way you and I are going to be paying in the end.
i was just mentioning gas taxes since we’re obviously not keeping all our current roads and bridges up to par so who knows how we’re going to maintain all the new roads and bridges being built. to me at least, an adequate amount of tax revenue for roads means the county wouldn’t have to give up critical tracts of land for private roads.
I agree that our graduation rate is lacking but I do not believe it’s due to lack of funding, I think we have a culture problem. Everyone wants to be a rapper or a ball player and do not value education (the parents are not helping either).
I’ve never heard of anyone not going to college because they did not have money… if your grades are good, you can always get grants, loans, part time job, etc.
Joel, the problem with raising taxes on gas is that it raises prices across the board like a domino effect… US relies on 18 wheelers for majority of goods distribution which translates into higher prices for food, building materials, and even medicine.
Raising taxes is a tricky thing, it rarely results in NET increase in govt revenue because people find alternatives, use less of something, or change jurisdiction of filing.
For example if they were to increase property taxes, more people would dispute values of their homes, or build slightly smaller homes, or do what every builder of large homes does… submit one set of plans to the city with smaller square footage and build something larger. Nobody actually verifies the square footage upon completion.
Gas taxes are already used to push an agenda. Can you guess which one?
Commodesense-
If an increase in the Texas gas tax leads to fewer miles driven, then I can live with the alarmist fallout.
It’s been 15-20 years and our infrastructure has been beaten to hell by the heavy users in particular.
If paying for decent infrastructure leads to diminished consumption, so be it.
That’s the market at work.
There’s the remains of a bridge in Minneapolis that speaks to your priorities.
Anon -plaintiff’s lawyers’?
U obviously Dunno,
You’re missing the point… increased taxes means lower consumption which means you don’t get any more money for the infrastructure than you had before the tax increase.
As far as I’ve seen around town the freeway look pretty good, major roads are decent. Sure there are some smaller roads that need repaving but there’s also a lot of road work going on around town doing that.
You want to increase tax revenue? #1 Increase overall prosperity by making a business friendly environment, #2 eliminate tax credits which give people more money back than they put in #3 Reduce freeloading on social programs.
When certain european nations reduced the time they pay unemployment, miraculously people found jobs. When they reduced payments for public housing, miraculously people settled disputes with family members and moved in together… nobody went homeless, nobody starved.
The reverse is also true though. Cutting public spending in order to allow tax cuts means laying people off. Growth in the UK has reversed in recent months as the government there has introduced large cuts to public services and consequently has laid a large number of public employees off. Those who are either in fear of losing their job or have actually lost it do not spend money. Growth stalls, profits drop to the extent that private companies also start laying off staff and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Commonsense should change his name to oxymoron after this little gem,
“Everyone wants to be a rapper or ball player and do not value education.”
So, which profession did you choose, commonsense? My guess is ball player.
Granted, Jimbo
There are several schools of thought on this issue and not even all economists agree.
I side with the notion that a government should not be the single largest employer because they skew wages (pay ridiculously more than free market demands)and being a single largest consumer of certain commodities (like energy) also have an unnatural effect on such things. I believe they should only create clarity and stability of rules in the system to encourage private investment in the country.
There are certainly different schools of thought on how best to stimulate growth.
I do have to take issue with the claim that public sector employees are paid “ridiculously” more than the free market demands. When comparing raw numbers its certainly true that public employees earn more on average. However this neglects the fact that a higher percentage of public employees are in white collar jobs requiring a higher level of education. When the level of education and job descriptionis factored in public employees actually earn less than their private counterparts.
Well, Jimbo, as an example…
My wife is a teacher at HISD, she gets paid about 20% there than she was offered at a prestigious private school. Plus all sorts of benefits. But the really ridiculous part is that her Teacher’s Assistant gets paid over 40k a year because he’s been there 15 years. A monkey can do his job for 15k a year, all he does is make copies, laminate, and make sure the little hood rats don’t destroy anything when the teacher is not looking.
Monkeys, hood rats, rappers, ball players, etc…
Commonsense is more like common racist.
Oh, go complain to Quanel X… and my rims better still be there when I walk outside!!!
I hope this conversation isn’t indicative of the future of commenting on Swamplot.
commonsense wrote:
“Well, Jimbo, as an example…
My wife is a teacher at HISD, she gets paid about 20% there than she was offered at a prestigious private school. Plus all sorts of benefits. But the really ridiculous part is that her Teacher’s Assistant gets paid over 40k a year because he’s been there 15 years. A monkey can do his job for 15k a year, all he does is make copies, laminate, and make sure the little hood rats don’t destroy anything when the teacher is not looking.”
Nice. Very nice. You didn’t say 20% more or 20% less; I assume from context you meant 20% more though it could go the other way. Private schools are notorious for poor pay and benefits. “All sorts of benefits?” You mean things like health care, retirement, and subsidized on-the-job training?” Those are standard-issue, not even considered questionable, in the industrialized democracies of Europe. 40K a year for a full-time job with 15 years seniority is barely a living wage. 15K is not, and I’ll bet there are lot more things that person does. And even if it’s primarily making copies and laminating, getting that done quickly and efficiently requires skill and experience. And helping maintain order in a difficult classroom? My wife was also a teacher for many years and what she wouldn’t have given for someone to help keep the kids from “destroying anything when the teacher isn’t looking.”
Obviously I meant “more”, pardon the grammar.
A. Are you referring to the broke quasi socialists european democracies?
B. The job description of the TA warrants a minimum wage at best, I think flipping burgers requires more training. I also think automatic wage increases are ridiculous if your job duties do not expand or you do your job above expectations.
As a person that had to hire and fire people over the years, I think majority of american workforce overvalue themselves. Doing your job well should be a minimum requirement not something that can only be achieved with additional monetary reward. Additionally, from a business perspective, no matter how well you make those copies, it’s still making copies. If you don’t do that job well for the appropriate salary then someone else will.
People are cranky at work today as well – too much late-night Royal Wedding special watching.
Yep, sounds like our latest and greatest me-want-it “expert on everything” is projecting all over the place. Everybody stay calm!
Got here too late to complain about parking minimums. Rats.
@commonsense,
Given that parking minimums raise the cost doing business, I would hope you would see they are a terrible idea, economically speaking. Let the market decide how much parking is required and let the rest of the square footage go to other useful purposes.
I agree that number of parking spaces should not be some arbitrary number but consider the type of business. A dry cleaners does not need as many spaces as a restaurant on the same size lot. I venture to guess that the reasoning behind the current ordinance is to maintain car friendliness of the city and maintain flexibility of the future use of a particular structure. That way a structure would not have to be demolished and rebuilt every time a new business moves in, limiting the number of vacant buildings around town.
Got here too late to complain about parking minimums. Rats.
@commonsense,
Parking minimums raise the cost doing business; forcing developers to build X parking spaces per Y sqf of Z land use means fewer square feet dedicated to retailers/condos/bar stools/etc. I would hope you would see they are a terrible idea, economically speaking. Let the market decide how much parking is required instead.
Sorry about the double post.
@commonsense,
I hope you do not mean the city has a better idea of the demand for every single business than the businesses understand themselves?
True, a dry cleaners may need less. What about a dry cleaners next door to a bar? What about a dry cleaners next door to a auto mechanic? With so many variations on (parking) land use, how on earth does the city determine what the right amount is?
As of now the City of Houston has hundreds of categories of business to accommodate what they deem approprate parking minimums. Is your solution to add more? Zoning for car storage based on land use is no more sensical than other types of zoning.
@paulbtucker @commonsense
Don’t forget, there’s never enough parking at the awesome places and plenty of parking at the crapholes. Houston has more empty parking lots at bygone strip centers than I think canada as a whole has*. The city really does need to reevaluate how much parking is really needed going forward and how much could be pushed back to the streets/multi-use lots, etc.
I was looking at condo in Chicago and the place was $500k (back in 2000) and the single assigned parking space was $30,000 on top of that. In Manhattan a parking spot can sell for up to $1,300 per square foot which is more expensive than the apartment itself. Perhaps Houston is trying to avoid that, but then again, let the market decide.
I was looking at condo in Chicago and the place was $500k (back in 2000) and the single assigned parking space was $30,000 on top of that. In Manhattan a parking spot can sell for up to $1,300 per square foot which is more expensive than the apartment itself. Perhaps Houston is trying to avoid that, but then again, let the market decide.
parking is also a recognized luxury in those cities because you can get anywhere without it. I’m not saying Houston needs to follow that (they have more historic reasons for lack of parking), but we certainly can do better at managing parking that the city currently does. and vast swaths of vacant concrete are not it.
It’s nice to see that a lot of people DO get it. What the comments above and elswhere also illustrate, though, is that those who are against government regulations when they promote urbanization (“we should trust the marketplace to decide!”), are all for them when they go the other way (e.g., parking requirements – “the market place CAN’T be trusted!”). It’s a wonder how New York, Paris, London, Milan, San Francisco, et al, manage without Houston’s vast concrete plains.
If anything, not only are parking-requirement laws a crock, forcing the few who do not drive to cover the parking needs of the rest who do (a government imposed subsidy of car use), they actually exponentially promote more driving: Since each business must provide its own parking, you have to drive off the parking lot, and drive to another one, even if the two businesses you are going to are across from each other, or even next to each other (unless they are in the same strip, or you will get towed). Thus, a trip that could have been accomodated with a single parking spot at a market-place-offered garage, and a single drive, now requires two parking spots, and two car drives across greater distances (you have to drive across the bigger parking lots to get to the store fronts). As is often the case, a government rule ends up exacerbating the very problem it claims to solve (more traffic, more pollution, and more concrete across greater distances, not to mention other ill-effects not noted here).