4 ms·

> I think the way to go would be to have all transit be funded by a combination of user fees and tax increment districts in the areas served by transit. After a

by strlen 13y ago

> I think the way to go would be to have all transit be funded by a combination of user fees and tax increment districts in the areas served by transit. After all, it's not just the subway rider that benefits from the existence of a subway line, but all the businesses and residential developments near a subway stop too. At least in Bay Area, being able to walk to public transportation (usually Bart of Caltrain: stuffwhitepeoplelike #147, "public transportation that is not a bus") has a huge rent and property value premium (with property usually being valued as a rental property). Effectively this means people who would benefit most from public transit (e.g., someone who has to commute to downtown SF -- as it's the only place hiring someone with their qualifications -- but can only afford to live in East or South Bay) can't afford to live near it. I wonder if a progressively priced tax on rent as a way to fund public transport (designed with incentives to make renting at a lower price to families attractive) would help: it would create incentives for apartment complexes to provide more affordable family units (vs. large units designed by to be shared by roommates) and have the effect of automatically providing more funds for public transportation to dense areas with many rentals (i.e., where it's most needed). I'd also add having states and localities fund interstates would be fair as well: there's no reason for me to force someone living in New York to fund my commute on the US-101 (the national security reason for having interstates is pretty much dead at this point; nor does allowing a missile truck to travel require widening 280 -- a local loop from I-80 -- to six lanes) and it takes away the ability of federal government to bully states into passing questionable laws with a moralistic basis (e.g., raising drinking age to 21) by threatening to withhold highway funds.

paddy_m 13y ago
You could easily encourage more affordable housing without tax incentives, but by simply repealing zoning restrictions. Let developers build denser structures with less space per person, it would be cheaper. Also remove requirements like offsite parking minimums which also make new construction expensive.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Hmm, dense structures, no zoning codes, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement
  - strlen 13y ago
    To be fair, Silicon Valley's zoning codes are far too restrictive and don't serve broader public interest. For example, my city (Saratoga), prohibits multi-family dwellings in most places -- meaning affordable housing can't be built -- and sets minimum lot sizes in many zones (a way to raise prices). Palo Alto is also quite bad in this respect (particularly in the transit friendly downtown neighbourhood). Reducing NIMBY-esque/real-estate developer driven zoning strictures doesn't imply repealing public safety/health codes. It will actually be against my personal interest if these restrictions go away -- I happen to a own townhouse in one of few places in Saratoga where multi-family homes are allowed and big reason I did this, was to be able to convert it to a rental property (highly desirable in Saratoga -- an area known for its safety and schools -- as they're virtually non-existent) once we decide we want a bigger place. However, I'll be glade to trade a few hundred in rent income for a more dynamic and less grid-locked Silicon Valley.

by strlen 13y ago

paddy_m 13y ago

You could easily encourage more affordable housing without tax incentives, but by simply repealing zoning restrictions. Let developers build denser structures with less space per person, it would be cheaper. Also remove requirements like offsite parking minimums which also make new construction expensive.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Hmm, dense structures, no zoning codes, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement
- strlen 13y ago
  To be fair, Silicon Valley's zoning codes are far too restrictive and don't serve broader public interest. For example, my city (Saratoga), prohibits multi-family dwellings in most places -- meaning affordable housing can't be built -- and sets minimum lot sizes in many zones (a way to raise prices). Palo Alto is also quite bad in this respect (particularly in the transit friendly downtown neighbourhood). Reducing NIMBY-esque/real-estate developer driven zoning strictures doesn't imply repealing public safety/health codes. It will actually be against my personal interest if these restrictions go away -- I happen to a own townhouse in one of few places in Saratoga where multi-family homes are allowed and big reason I did this, was to be able to convert it to a rental property (highly desirable in Saratoga -- an area known for its safety and schools -- as they're virtually non-existent) once we decide we want a bigger place. However, I'll be glade to trade a few hundred in rent income for a more dynamic and less grid-locked Silicon Valley.