4 ms·

> You can also tax cars until demand decreases. I think punishing drivers is a bad idea. It'd be much better to provide alternatives to driving that are attrac

> You can also tax cars until demand decreases. I think punishing drivers is a bad idea. It'd be much better to provide alternatives to driving that are attractive enough that people choose to use them because it actually benefits them to do so. Not many people are looking for their city to hurt them until they have no choice but to make do with things that are worse and less convenient for them. Give people a better option and they'll flock to it naturally. I've spent enough time in places with amazing public transportation that I know it can be the preferred option for 80-90% of my needs. That's what we should strive for.

Gibbon1 3y ago
I agree. The issue with taxing drivers is it assume the driver is mostly culpable. But the infrastructure decisions that force the majority of people to commute by car weren't made by them. You got things like the big boss and his managers all like to live close to each other and close to work. So they commute 5 minutes to the office in Sunnyvale. While the secretary is commuting from Vacaville. Placing a Pigouvian tax on the secretary is kinda a jerk move.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  I suggested that housing be substantially expanded FIRST and then phase in increased taxes on cars in the city thereafter. Basically first make it possible for the secretary to have an opportunity to move close to Sunnyvale then years later if its still important to live in Vacaville they can pay increasing taxes representing the actual collective cost.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I suspect you'll run into similar difficulties convincing people to allow their single family homes to be bulldozed and give up their privacy, their equity, and their lawns/gardens so that they can move in with strangers. If you can't offer people a housing situation that's better for them than what they have you'll not get many people signing up to make their lives worse. Try to strong arm them into it and you'll get resistance and resentment. I think we have the ability to give people better, less isolated, housing options that many would find preferable to cookie cutter houses in labyrinth-like subdivisions that cut them off from the rest of the city unless they can drive, but those options will have to minimize the downsides of living in close proximity to many others and come with additional benefits that more than make up for what you're asking people to give up.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      The bulldozer comes after the sale of your newly more valuable property. WA just passed a law essentially ending single family home zoning. fourplexes can be build in any city of 75k, sixplexes near transit or if 2 are "affordable". https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-05-08/washington-governor-signs-law-allowing-duplexes-fourplexes https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-05-08/washingto... Separately some areas like shoreline have decided to allow upzoning near transit. 4 neighbors got together and sold realizing a 75% premium over home value. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/neighbors-selling-homes-as-a-bundle-expected-to-rake-in-millions/538366805/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/neighbors-selling-homes-as-...
michaelmrose 3y ago
Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of their decision so they can make intelligent decisions whether or not to bear them instead of forcing everyone to bear them while people make the entirely rational choice to impose overall cost to society as a whole. For example charging smokers more for health insurance.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of their decision so they can make intelligent decisions whether or not to bear them If it isn't hurting them then it isn't incentivizing them to change their behavior, and any tax painful enough to drive wealthier people to change is going to disproportionately impact the poorer people who can least afford it and who are also more likely have the least opportunity/ability to change. Charging smokers more for health insurance wouldn't be any better if we'd structured our entire society around forcing people to smoke in order to function and while many were still left with no other viable alternatives besides smoking. People generations before we were born allowed the auto industry to shape our cities in ways that made their products essential to our day to day lives and it doesn't do much good to punish people today. For most people, the entire idea that it's "their decision" to drive cars is questionable at best. Many people would already prefer for things to be different. Give people an alternative solution that meets their needs and actually improves their situation and there'll be no need for flagellation.

Gibbon1 3y ago

I agree. The issue with taxing drivers is it assume the driver is mostly culpable. But the infrastructure decisions that force the majority of people to commute by car weren't made by them. You got things like the big boss and his managers all like to live close to each other and close to work. So they commute 5 minutes to the office in Sunnyvale. While the secretary is commuting from Vacaville. Placing a Pigouvian tax on the secretary is kinda a jerk move.

michaelmrose 3y ago
I suggested that housing be substantially expanded FIRST and then phase in increased taxes on cars in the city thereafter. Basically first make it possible for the secretary to have an opportunity to move close to Sunnyvale then years later if its still important to live in Vacaville they can pay increasing taxes representing the actual collective cost.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I suspect you'll run into similar difficulties convincing people to allow their single family homes to be bulldozed and give up their privacy, their equity, and their lawns/gardens so that they can move in with strangers. If you can't offer people a housing situation that's better for them than what they have you'll not get many people signing up to make their lives worse. Try to strong arm them into it and you'll get resistance and resentment. I think we have the ability to give people better, less isolated, housing options that many would find preferable to cookie cutter houses in labyrinth-like subdivisions that cut them off from the rest of the city unless they can drive, but those options will have to minimize the downsides of living in close proximity to many others and come with additional benefits that more than make up for what you're asking people to give up.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    The bulldozer comes after the sale of your newly more valuable property. WA just passed a law essentially ending single family home zoning. fourplexes can be build in any city of 75k, sixplexes near transit or if 2 are "affordable". https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-05-08/washington-governor-signs-law-allowing-duplexes-fourplexes https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-05-08/washingto... Separately some areas like shoreline have decided to allow upzoning near transit. 4 neighbors got together and sold realizing a 75% premium over home value. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/neighbors-selling-homes-as-a-bundle-expected-to-rake-in-millions/538366805/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/neighbors-selling-homes-as-...

michaelmrose 3y ago

Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of their decision so they can make intelligent decisions whether or not to bear them instead of forcing everyone to bear them while people make the entirely rational choice to impose overall cost to society as a whole. For example charging smokers more for health insurance.

autoexec 3y ago
> Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of their decision so they can make intelligent decisions whether or not to bear them If it isn't hurting them then it isn't incentivizing them to change their behavior, and any tax painful enough to drive wealthier people to change is going to disproportionately impact the poorer people who can least afford it and who are also more likely have the least opportunity/ability to change. Charging smokers more for health insurance wouldn't be any better if we'd structured our entire society around forcing people to smoke in order to function and while many were still left with no other viable alternatives besides smoking. People generations before we were born allowed the auto industry to shape our cities in ways that made their products essential to our day to day lives and it doesn't do much good to punish people today. For most people, the entire idea that it's "their decision" to drive cars is questionable at best. Many people would already prefer for things to be different. Give people an alternative solution that meets their needs and actually improves their situation and there'll be no need for flagellation.