4 ms·

I disagree with this point: >The travelers polluting city storm water sewers are paying taxes in the city when they do business in the city, which is why they

I disagree with this point: >The travelers polluting city storm water sewers are paying taxes in the city when they do business in the city, which is why they are using the roads. If there was no reason to come to the city, there would be a lot less stormwater pollution but also a lot less commerce and the city would be worse off. This is in effect a cross subsidy, making it hard to rationally price pollution. Usage based pricing / taxes are more efficient here. It would be better to lower city taxes and raise road taxes to reflect the cost of pollution. Then, people would either a) drive less or b) drive less polluting vehicles or c) pay the full price of cleanup. The argument that there is 'more commerce' doesn't hold. If city business (and residents) are subsidizing consumers (e.g. paying for their pollution), the cost of doing business goes up in the city and thus producers have to charge higher prices, reducing consumption. There is no free lunch here unless you steal it from a 3rd party, and in the case of city budgets there is little in the way to prevent that.

zaroth 8y ago
People come to your city to do business there. If a lot of people do business in your city, a lot of people will be coming in and out of town every day. Complaining that the people who come to your city to do business (spend their money) are poluting a bit with their cars while they are there, and the cost of that pollution is unfairly borne by city dwellers I think is bizarre, because the benefits of those people coming into the city and spending all that money (which generates jobs and tax revenue, etc.) accrues to the city. The city is already being paid a very hefty return on the cost of cleaning up the pollution of people traveling into the city every day. The city would not want to discourage people from making the trip! Maybe more succinctly, the polluter is already paying the city more than enough to cover the cost of cleaning up the car pollution, by nature of the money they are spending while they are in the city.
- pas 8y ago
  it's not about rentability, it's about fairness. this is a subsidy in favor of those, who pollute by car, while usually those are the people who could pay for it easily. of course, it's possible that if a city is at the same time both relies heavily on car based tourism/shoppers and its demography is dominantly carless poor people, then in this case probably they would get more poorer by introducing a car usage fee.

zaroth 8y ago

People come to your city to do business there. If a lot of people do business in your city, a lot of people will be coming in and out of town every day. Complaining that the people who come to your city to do business (spend their money) are poluting a bit with their cars while they are there, and the cost of that pollution is unfairly borne by city dwellers I think is bizarre, because the benefits of those people coming into the city and spending all that money (which generates jobs and tax revenue, etc.) accrues to the city. The city is already being paid a very hefty return on the cost of cleaning up the pollution of people traveling into the city every day. The city would not want to discourage people from making the trip! Maybe more succinctly, the polluter is already paying the city more than enough to cover the cost of cleaning up the car pollution, by nature of the money they are spending while they are in the city.

pas 8y ago
it's not about rentability, it's about fairness. this is a subsidy in favor of those, who pollute by car, while usually those are the people who could pay for it easily. of course, it's possible that if a city is at the same time both relies heavily on car based tourism/shoppers and its demography is dominantly carless poor people, then in this case probably they would get more poorer by introducing a car usage fee.