4 ms·

Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely bei

Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely being given away. You pay those taxes regardless of whether or not you have a car. And it's not unreasonable to expect that if people want to have a car they should pay the actual cost of doing so. Why should the rest of us subsidize those people?

jshaqaw 7y ago
That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
  - jshaqaw 7y ago
    Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.
nemo44x 7y ago
I don’t use bike lanes or a bunch of other things but yet I pay for them. This is how taxes work.

jshaqaw 7y ago

That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.

bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
- jshaqaw 7y ago
  Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.

nemo44x 7y ago

I don’t use bike lanes or a bunch of other things but yet I pay for them. This is how taxes work.