West End Streetscape

[cheeriokid61]

1 cent sales tax? Surely we can be willing to pay that little for some good mass transit. It seems like a no brainer to me.

[nashvillwill]

um, cheerio...have you talked to people around here. If you even whisper a 1/4 cent increase in sales tax the entire Hill is up in arms!

[Guest]

I like the idea but it wil take years of agressive lobbying AND a continued rise in the cost of energy before Nashville will swing into action. Portland uses a payroll tax to get the matching federal dollars. This allows them to tax the users that commute in fo rthe jobs and then back outto the 'burbs.

[franktown]

Add on to the wheel tax IMO, it's a once a year tax, and people complain about how high it is--even if it isn't that high. But back to the streetscape... So I was down there today, and you know, it's a nice street in terms of all the office buildings and all the $$$ there, but it looks pretty ratty. Some of those streetlights were rustyand old, they weren't uniform, there weren't many trash bins. The street would look SO much better if a streetscape like Church Street was implemented. On a side note, does anyone know if there's any plans for that bulding at the split of West End Blvd and Broadway? All that's there now is an Import Auto Repair, and I think that could be SUCH a cool building. It could be a flatiron building, but modern. I dunno, but WEB could use some improvement IMO.

[cheeriokid61]

There was an article that said that they are planning on replacing all the street lights.

[smeagolsfree]

Would rather have a 1 cent sales tax than a income tax or increase in property tax. That way the everyone shares the burden, even the visitors.

[cheeriokid61]

Yeah, that's probably the best idea. Of course, people would complain that it's already to high.

[franktown]

Would rather have a 1 cent sales tax than a income tax or increase in property tax. That way the everyone shares the burden, even the visitors.

A property tax is hard to pass, as we saw last fall. People didn't even accept one JUST for education. Income tax is a touchy issue around here, and few politicians would want to go near that landmine. The argument against higher sales tax is that we already have one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. As well, sales taxes are flat, therefore regressive, and they hurt those in lower income groups more. Any sales tax increase would be hard to get through, especially because we have a high one already, and tourists wouldn't be too happy about it.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Whether or not the income tax is a touchy issue is irrelevent. The income tax is strictly forbidden under the state constitution. As for the sales tax, it is so obscenely high that it is already at the point that it may likely be raising no more money than were it at a lower level. We may actually increase revenues by lowering it below the level of our neighboring states.

[franktown]

Whether or not the income tax is a touchy issue is irrelevent. The income tax is strictly forbidden under the state constitution. As for the sales tax, it is so obscenely high that it is already at the point that it may likely be raising no more money than were it at a lower level. We may actually increase revenues by lowering it below the level of our neighboring states.

The income tax is forbiden under the state constitution? What was the battle over a few years ago? Wow, I'm glad no one told me that at Youth Legislature, because my bill proposed a state income tax. But I think you're probably right, we're losing a lot of revenue from people crossing the border to do their shopping, and a lower sales tax could combat that. Maybe a way to raise revenue would be to put a fee for buying a new/used car in the Nashville MSA. People won't stop buying cars, and Mass Transit is intended to reduce cars...seems like it could work.

[cheeriokid61]

People would just buy cars somewhere else too.

[Lukin]

Although I'm sure this would get considerable opposition...I think it would interesting if the state (or Nashville MSA) raised taxes a bit on gasoline to fund mass transit...people are going to buy gas no matter what...unless, of course, if they use mass transit. It'd be a great way to encourage ridership while simultaneously funding future projects. Just a thought.

[franktown]

People would just buy cars somewhere else too.

People will still buy cars, but most people wouldn't think/realize that the tax was there....maybe. It's hard to find a good way to finance the project, but hopefully city leaders can find a way (I have my doubts).

[Kheldane]

People will still buy cars, but most people wouldn't think/realize that the tax was there....maybe. It's hard to find a good way to finance the project, but hopefully city leaders can find a way (I have my doubts).

I think people would realize - dealerships outside of Davidson Co would advertise their lower taxes very loudly on TV and Radio. Plus, how would you tax the Nashville MSA? The MSA is irrelevant from a legal standpoint - it's just a convenient statistical tool.

I see a lot of kooky ideas for taxing schemes being floated in this thread:

Gas Tax

Sales Tax

Income Tax

Property Tax

Car Tax

What about making the Riders of the rail system pay for the rail system??? Why is that not the obvious solution?

...

...

Others: "But Kheldane, people are not willing to pay a ticket price that would support the rail system"

Kheldane: "If that's true, then it proves people have better things to spend their money on than rail transport"

Others: "But rail would be beneficial to the whole region and everyone in/around Nashville"

Kheldane: "But everyone in/around Nahville disagrees with you - they've already chosen to spend their money elsewhere. How would you (personally) know what's good for Nashville?"

[cheeriokid61]

That, unfortunately, is very true. People have things they'd rather spend money on. But still, mass transit is a major part of urban life. Huge cities cannot always have only cars for transportation. Imagine if New York or Chicago didn't have trains. You wouldn't be able to get anywhere. I'm sure there are many people out there who would ride a train if it was there, but we don't know, because it's not here.

Plus, if only people who rode the trains paid for tickets, the prices would be more than $20 per ticket, which would be ridiculous. If everyone paid for it by taxes, the price would be much less.

If you look at other cities with mass transit, most well planned systems have been very successful. If Nashville does it right, we could have a successful rail system. After people try it, they might decide they like it.

I think we need to tax the people to pay to build the rail system, and then let the riders pay to keep it going.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The income tax is forbiden under the state constitution? What was the battle over a few years ago? Wow, I'm glad no one told me that at Youth Legislature, because my bill proposed a state income tax.

Indeed. Specific language in the TN state constitution states as follows: "The Legislature shall have power to levy a tax upon incomes derived from stocks and bonds that are not taxed ad valorem." (1870 Constitution, Article II, Section 28). This means that only a tax on the latter two incomes are permitted.

In a 1932 ruling, the state Supreme Court held that that sentence "conferred upon the Legislature the power to tax only one class of incomes", and "necessarily denied to the Legislature the power to tax incomes of other classes", and, therefore, that a tax on personal income enacted by the Legislature was unconstitutional (Evans v. McCabe, 52 S.W.2d 159)

This was upheld again in 1960 and 1964 unanimously (Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453; Gallagher v. Butler, 378 S.W.2d 161).

Only recent shenanigans by our ex-RINO Governor and Democrat partisans undemocratically represented in the Attorney-General's office and state Supreme Court (with the noteworthy exception of John Jay Hooker, whom I voted for over Sundquist in '98, who specifically stated he would fight its implementation in the courts) attempted to subvert this long-respected precedent.

[dfwtiger]

I think people would realize - dealerships outside of Davidson Co would advertise their lower taxes very loudly on TV and Radio. Plus, how would you tax the Nashville MSA? The MSA is irrelevant from a legal standpoint - it's just a convenient statistical tool.

I see a lot of kooky ideas for taxing schemes being floated in this thread:

Gas Tax

Sales Tax

Income Tax

Property Tax

Car Tax

What about making the Riders of the rail system pay for the rail system??? Why is that not the obvious solution?

...

...

Others: "But Kheldane, people are not willing to pay a ticket price that would support the rail system"

Kheldane: "If that's true, then it proves people have better things to spend their money on than rail transport"

Others: "But rail would be beneficial to the whole region and everyone in/around Nashville"

Kheldane: "But everyone in/around Nahville disagrees with you - they've already chosen to spend their money elsewhere. How would you (personally) know what's good for Nashville?"

A gas tax is used for the construction of road at the state level and the federal gas tax is used to subsidize roads also. If we used a gas tax, would this not be a way for people to pay for riding transit...like they pay to use a street.

Please provide guidance...I'm confused.

Another option:

Charge people based on the amount of carbon the place in the atmosphere based on fuel economy. This would be a sliding scale. The more you pollute, the more you pay. This would provide a clear nexus between mass transit and vehicle that pay to pollute.

[cheeriokid61]

I do kind of like that last idea. But I think a gas tax would be the best. I find it funny that the people not using the transit are the ones paying for it. It's definately a good way to encourage people to use it. And it wouldn't have to be a whole lot. If it was just one cent per gallon, people wouldn't notice much of a difference, but it would come out to about 20 cents per car per week, which would be a lot.

[Kheldane]

Plus, if only people who rode the trains paid for tickets, the prices would be more than $20 per ticket, which would be ridiculous. If everyone paid for it by taxes, the price would be much less.

How can you say that $20 per ticket is ridiculous? As you have (implicitly) stated in your post - it is the real cost of the rail service the rider is receiving! If I ride a train that is paid for by taxes, and thus my ride only costs me $5, but in the absence of taxes I would be paying $20, does the price I pay in any way change the cost of providing the rail service to me? By no means. I have received $20 worth of rail service for $5 - which is not equitable for the other people around town who were forced to subsidize my rail service. I should be made to pay 100% of the cost of hauling my ass around town, no matter what mode of transportation I choose.

Or let's flip the perspective: Why should my grandmother, who only drives her Buick in a triangle between church, grocery store, and home - which are all in a 2 square mile area - be forced to pay an extra gas tax so some loosers from West End can breeze into town each morning on a fancy light-rail train? Aren't they rich enough to pay their own way around Nashville? Does she owe them a discounted train fare?

[Guest]

Kheldane

I agree with you in principle but the gov't has been subsidizing the roads for decades and thus to be fair how would you propose to even the playing field. As it stands in your world the private sector would have to pave roads and run sewers and other infrastructure. The problem being that sure toll roads could be built down wst end but who the hell would build a road to Joelton? In other words I do think the goverment has a role to play in developing infrastructure, transportation and others.

[Kheldane]

Kheldane

I agree with you in principle but the gov't has been subsidizing the roads for decades and thus to be fair how would you propose to even the playing field. As it stands in your world the private sector would have to pave roads and run sewers and other infrastructure. The problem being that sure toll roads could be built down wst end but who the hell would build a road to Joelton? In other words I do think the goverment has a role to play in developing infrastructure, transportation and others.

I definitely understand where you're coming from NB, plus I don't pretent to have all the answers of how a truely free market city would work or look. Actually, that's one of the strengths of the argument: That no one person or group of people get to decide or plan how society functions (socialism), but instead the entire economy is the result of thousands or millions of market participants whose efforts are organized automatically by the market pricing system. To some people it may seem litke total randomness or chaos since no one person or group is in charge, but the reality is the market pricing system is highly organized and efficient, and better still, it arises spontaneously whenever people engage in voluntary exchange.

But to be more specific about your question: I guess the people of Joelton would build the road to joelton. Or maybe more likely, the major industries and businesses of joelton would build the road to Joelton so they could transport their products out and raw materials in.

And just for the sake of saving time, I'll anticipate a question: "Kheldane what if a city has no major factories or businesses to subsidize the roads and the people are too poor to do it themselves?" Answer: "I would then question the need of even having a city in such a location. If there truely is a case where there is no compelling economic reason for people to live somewhere, then I see no need for a road to that place in the first place."

[Guest]

You did indeed anticipate the next question. lol

I would argue that the government laying the foundation for a national transportation infrastructure (highways, airports, ports...) is a large component of our national economic growth over the last five decades.

[Kheldane]

I would argue that the government laying the foundation for a national transportation infrastructure (highways, airports, ports...) is a large component of our national economic growth over the last five decades.

I should have anticipated that argument as well ! ...J/K.

Actually, I would argue the inverse: That government spending on infrastructure represents a disasterous and not easily correctable misallocation of scarce capital.

Look at highways: Endless traffic and a perilous national dependency on foreign oil is the result of decades of subsidized free-to-the-public highway construction. And really, only light commercial goods are transported on highways. Many bulk commodities (and increasingly consumer goods) are transported on trains for long distances. I can't think of any vital product produced in the US that couldn't be transported on privately owned rails. Interstates are actually highly inefficent in terms of weight of goods transported v/s cost to transport them when compared to rails.

Sea ports could easily be privately owned (I actually think a private port is being built in Virginia now...). Shipping companies, rail companies, major industries - they will all build and operate their own sea ports. And look at how inefficiently government has done the job: Long Beach is completely over-crowded, other ports are in great need of expansion to handle increased trade.

Look at airports: Overcrowding in some areas, practically deserted terminals in others. Sure air transport is vital for commerce - but does anyone really believe that airports would not exist at all in the absence of government expenditures? I believe most early airports (1900 - 1930's) were all privately owned. Airports should be constructed by either people who are in the airport business or by airlines. Sure FedEx is more than happy to use the Memphis Airport because the government builds an maintians it for free (or at least charges them less than it costs to build it), but in the free market FedEx would likely have to build their own airport - which might work out better. Who knows?

"Who knows" indeed. That's really the key question. How does a government body know if an airport expansion is the best use of that capital if they don't use the market pricing system? The money is taken by force - so there's no direct connection between the success/failure of the project and satisfying consumers. The money is spent at the direction of one or a few people, who often have limited knowledge of the market.

Why, for example, is there a direct interstate from Nashville to Memphis, and not from Memphis to Birmingham (one is being built - but way late). Why is there no direct interstate from Denver to Dallas? Things like this would be decided by market forces and the value of goods travelling certain corridors in the free market. However, currently they are decided by committee or politics or bribery/kickbacks - none of which are necessarily looking out for the overall/long term economic interests of the country. Should interstates even exist west of Texas/Oklahoma/missouri/iowa/minnesota,,,or should all goods and people beyond there be transported by train due to the long distances between cities? In the free market that question would be decided by economics and business owners. It's very comforting and convenient to say "we should have a uniform nationwide interstate system", but if you've ingored the economic reality then you've greatly harmed the economy of the country and lowered the standard of living of it's citizens.

[Guest]

Ah ha! You have fallen in to my web. lol

The original impetus for the national highway system was not driven by economic concerns but by national security. Ike was amazed at how fast troops and machinery could be moved along the German Autobahn during and post WWII. He planned the new interstate system so that assets could be positioned all over the country in a defensive posture as required.

I guess sometimes the gov't must act with more than a ROI goal, unlike private industry.

[Kheldane]

Ah ha! You have fallen in to my web. lol

The original impetus for the national highway system was not driven by economic concerns but by national security. Ike was amazed at how fast troops and machinery could be moved along the German Autobahn during and post WWII. He planned the new interstate system so that assets could be positioned all over the country in a defensive posture as required.

I guess sometimes the gov't must act with more than a ROI goal, unlike private industry.

Lol - I did think about the miliatary aspect, but decided not to address it since we were talking about the civilian transport aspect of infrastructure.

Not withstanding the possibility that you might have only raised this issue to avoid addressing my previous points (which I will graciously allow you to do ), the libertarian outlook on that aspect of the interstate system is slightly different:

One of the primary functions of government is to provide for national defense. If interstate highways are judged to be crucial for national defense, then they should, by all means, be constructed. However, there are two things to consider: (1)Modern wars happen quickly, and any war involving the US mainland would be happening very quickly! The size of the US makes transport via roadway less relavent than it was for Nazi Germany. If the US were under attack it would be more important for troops and forces to be already located near the conflict area than it would be to have them far away. And the other point: (2) moving equipment around the country would likely take place in the aftermath of the war - which would be nuclear - and in that case there might not be much to drive between. The interstates are not nuclear-proof, so a large portion of the system would be destroyed. One could almost make the argument that non-descript back roads would be more useful during active conflict, since major roads would be targeted, monitored, or possibly destroyed in the early stages of the war. And don't forget - germany was fighting a ground war - which seems unlikely in the US considering both of our neighbors are far weaker militarily. Possibly Alaska could be involved in a ground war, but there are no interstates there.

I think it's pretty obvious to most that interstates have become more of a civilian conveyance device than a military asset. And in that context - the market would provide superior allocation of capital for all the reasons I've mentioned before.