I Have A Huge Problem With Greenville Planning. Is There A Solution?

[GvilleSC]

This would have to be put before the voters of the County. And, most people have never heard of York County's efforts or results. All the critics have to do is point to Richland County (which HAS received a lot of press) to see how poorly managed and wasteful such a system CAN be. You have win people over when you're proposing a new tax, and this would be a hard sell. So, the point is this: you want to see change, but I'm not sure this discussion has a point. So, what are other methods of achieving the results that you want to see?

I'd rather see funding for mass transit, better zoning and planning, and more greenways. If you're asking me to vote for a tax to fund turn lanes and to prop up sprawl, it's not going to happen. 

[bikeoid]

7 hours ago, vicupstate said:

What was the 'loophole'?  IIRC the last time (or maybe the time before) the penny tax was proposed, it was for a multitude of recreational projects.  Are you certain about the Local tax applying to food, because the standard sales tax does not. 

The last one in 2014 was supposed to be for roads only.   The 'loophole' was that they forgot an explicit exclusion for groceries.  By not excluding it, that was our loophole to claim that it would be included.   It's hard to vote on something that they promise to fix afterwards.     More detail about the arguments:   https://hbaofgreenville.com/facts-about-the-penny-sales-tax-referendum-for-roads-in-greenville-county/

[bikeoid]

22 hours ago, NDL said:

York County's Penny's For Progress program adds a one percent surcharge, to the local sales tax that's levied, and it is *only* used on roads.  What you're saying, is the idea that was floated here, was very different than York Co's program?

 

The idea was the same, - to use only on roads but some very high powered lawyers found some weaknesses in the way it was worded.

[NDL]

On 1/16/2020 at 3:50 PM, GvilleSC said:

This would have to be put before the voters of the County. And, most people have never heard of York County's efforts or results. All the critics have to do is point to Richland County (which HAS received a lot of press) to see how poorly managed and wasteful such a system CAN be. You have win people over when you're proposing a new tax, and this would be a hard sell. So, the point is this: you want to see change, but I'm not sure this discussion has a point. So, what are other methods of achieving the results that you want to see?

I'd rather see funding for mass transit, better zoning and planning, and more greenways. If you're asking me to vote for a tax to fund turn lanes and to prop up sprawl, it's not going to happen. 

Great points, all around.

I agree that selling a new tax to residents, via a referendum, would be a hard sell - nor do I fault residents for being leery over the fact that funds might not be properly appropriated.  Had I not lived in York Co for a few years, I would not have seen the results of their "penny's with progress" program.

That said, I don't think that inaction is a reasonable alternative.  And as much as this might seem incendiary, the truth of the matter is that the SC DOT isn't doing the job that it's supposed to be doing.  The question is why?  Insufficient funding?  Inefficiency?  Poor structuring?

According to our local representatives, the State is sitting on funds.  Perhaps restructuring the system might produce better results.

5 hours ago, bikeoid said:

The idea was the same, - to use only on roads but some very high powered lawyers found some weaknesses in the way it was worded.

Thanks for the link; I look forward to reading the material.

[NDL]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:02 PM, bikeoid said:

The last one in 2014 was supposed to be for roads only.   The 'loophole' was that they forgot an explicit exclusion for groceries.  By not excluding it, that was our loophole to claim that it would be included.   It's hard to vote on something that they promise to fix afterwards.     More detail about the arguments:   https://hbaofgreenville.com/facts-about-the-penny-sales-tax-referendum-for-roads-in-greenville-county/

Per the source material:

"“Only 4 cents out of the 16 cents in gas tax returns to Greenville County.”
This is false. The numbers do not lie, but the opposition does.  From 2002 until 2011, drivers bought 2.2 billion gallons of gasoline in Greenville County, and paid $353 million in taxes on that gas. Greenville County received $567 million in funded road projects from the Department of Transportation. We actually received 27 cents in projects for every 16 cents in gas tax Greenville County sent to Columbia.  This rumor is rooted in the fact that 4 cents of the 16-cent gasoline tax is dedicated to a program for maintenance of county- and locally-maintained roads.  However, only 30 percent of all roads in the state are maintained by counties or cities.  The rest are maintained by the state.  It is only fair for the state to receive the largest portion of the gasoline tax that drivers pay.  Even so, the state spends their funds where the needs exist.  The fact that Greenville County has received a larger share than it contributed speaks to the need to repair and maintain our county’s roads."

*******

The above material only sites gas tax revenue, as if it's the sole source of revenue for the SC DOT.

What about all other sources of revenue?  Do they not contribute anything to our roads?

[NDL]

The above article, in my view, makes a specious argument, which ignores all other sources of revenue.

I have yet to find out how much revenue SC gets from the federal government, yet here's an interesting blurb:

"The chart below shows the shares of state fuel taxes and vehicle fees diverted to non-highway uses. South Carolina, for example, diverts 31 percent. "

https://www.cato.org/blog/highways-gas-tax-diversions

Edited January 18, 2020 by NDL

[Spartan]

On 1/15/2020 at 11:07 PM, distortedlogic said:

Some excellent points Spartan. I'll also add the fact that SC has the 4th largest highway system in the country in total miles, not per capita. That figure could be a little outdated as I haven't seen an updated figure in a couple of years, but it's basically 4th. To me, that is a staggering fact, especially when you take into account how small the state is geographically. And with a low population over the decades, there just have not been many funds going into maintaining such a large highway system. There are lots of needs around the state and not just in the metropolitan areas. Most rural roads have bridge issues, a total lack of shoulders, and don't get resurfaced nearly enough.  

 

 

Yes, the fact that SCDOT has such a large network to maintain is an issue. That said, NCDOT also has a large network, and even though it's a larger state - it has adjusted is gas tax over the years to provide enough money to fund roadway projects. Although there are many issues with the way North Carolina has funded projects - the fact is that money has been available and the roads here are generally in good condition. I cannot say the same when I travel back to South Carolina.

 

SCDOT's network is one of the many vestiges of the SC Legislature's iron fisted dominance over everything that happens in the state. Home Rule in the 70s was good for cities and counties - but the inability to control their road networks remains an issue.

 

On 1/16/2020 at 3:13 PM, NDL said:

Thank you very much, for your edifying reply.

So...locally, Greenville City has it's hand in planning, while the County and State, not so much. 

Do you know if there's any local motivation to rehabilitate the system?

Is there anyone, locally, who might be interested in taking a look at York County's "Penny's For Progress" program?  I lived in York Co for a few years, and the County deserves recognition for the job that they've done.  For while the system can't make up for the deficits that take place at the State level, the County roads are miles ahead, of the roads here.

Do any of our representatives, at the local level, have the wherewithal to take this on,  or is this too much of a hot topic to handle?

 

 

Good question. I can't speak for Greenville as I don't live there. Growing up in the Upstate, however, my take on it is that people are generally willing to consider new taxes if it will solve a problem. Spartanburg, for example, just increased property taxes for 5 years (or something to that effect) to pay for a new courthouse. The key thing is that there's a sunset on the tax and it's for a specific and much needed purpose. 

 

I think anyone that wants to pass a Pennies for Progress style program would need to convince people that this new funding would solve a problem. My somewhat cynical opinion is that due to the nature of planning in the Upstate (or the lack of it) there is no real solution to the traffic issue and it will only get worse. Sure you could widen a few roads and there definitely needs to be some safety improvements - but I don't feel like there is a coherent vision for the future of transportation at any level - and THAT is what you need to sell to people first. Once there is a plan, then it's just a matter of funding it.

 

 

On 1/16/2020 at 3:50 PM, GvilleSC said:

This would have to be put before the voters of the County. And, most people have never heard of York County's efforts or results. All the critics have to do is point to Richland County (which HAS received a lot of press) to see how poorly managed and wasteful such a system CAN be. You have win people over when you're proposing a new tax, and this would be a hard sell. So, the point is this: you want to see change, but I'm not sure this discussion has a point. So, what are other methods of achieving the results that you want to see?

I'd rather see funding for mass transit, better zoning and planning, and more greenways. If you're asking me to vote for a tax to fund turn lanes and to prop up sprawl, it's not going to happen. 

 

I don't know if Greenville does this or not, but about 10 years ago Spartanburg County added a '$25 vehicle registration fee' to the tax bill in order to fund the replacement of bridges that bad been damaged by floods, and some that were just unsafe and obsolete - and were somehow not a part of the SCDOT network. It pissed off a lot of voters and several commissioners lost their reelection bids... but it was a needed revenue source and it helped fund some needed projects. The point is that there are other options - there just has to be political will to do it.