Charge me by the ton mile

[Tinker71]

We need large amounts of housing in any case. We haven't been building to keep up with job growth or birth rate for decades. Especially on the local level.

-Crissa

I really don't get the housing crunch. Population growth has been 1% per year in the USA for the last 10 years. Call it 300,000 new people per year. Housing starts have been roughly 1 million units per year over the last 10 years. 2.1 people per house (assuming these include apartments) I theory we are creating ~2 million bed spaces per year.

Adjust for retiring old assets, 2nd homes etc. We still should be fine.

As you said, this is a local problem, probably caused by internal migration.

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

I really don't get the housing crunch. Population growth has been 1% per year in the USA for the last 10 years. Call it 300,000 new people per year. Housing starts have been roughly 1 million units per year over the last 10 years. 2.1 people per house (assuming these include apartments) I theory we are creating ~2 million bed spaces per year.

Adjust for retiring old assets, 2nd homes etc. We still should be fine.

As you said, this is a local problem, probably caused by internal migration.

Houses are destroyed every year. They age out, destroyed in storms, fire, climate losses to housing has been increasing. And housing starts aren't 'completes'. And you should know that 1% of 322 million is larger than 1 million.

In California we built 103,000 homes new. But just to wildfire that year, we lost almost 20k units. We gained about 200k people in the same time. It's especially bad here, but it's true of almost all successful metro across the country.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

Houses are destroyed every year. They age out, destroyed in storms, fire, climate losses to housing has been increasing. And housing starts aren't 'completes'. And you should know that 1% of 322 million is larger than 1 million.

In California we built 103,000 homes new. But just to wildfire that year, we lost almost 20k units. We gained about 200k people in the same time. It's especially bad here, but it's true of almost all successful metro across the country.

-Crissa

Dang it I missed a digit. Where is the sheepish Icon?

 

[Challeco]

None of that says people must have cars and drive.

My sister doesn't. The train stops blocks from her apartment complex. No, we don't have a trust fund. I bought my house for less than a tricked a full price Model S Plaid.

Public transit only goes where we want it to. There's no reason it can't go door to door. That's what taxis do, after all.

-Crissa

Normally, I am right there with you on these posts. But this one, not so much. My post wasn't an attack upon personal choice. Nor was it against leveraging your assets to your advantage. Your sister, found an apartment close to her need so she doesn't require personal transportation. Your house purchase, while a smart move on your part, is not necessarily an option for others.
What I was trying to get across to Tinker, is his dismissal of the poor is cruel. The way I was trying to explain my point boils down to "it is expensive to be poor". We could take this into the weeds, but I do not want to waste your time, or mine. Your sister made a good decision based her current status. If she changes jobs, the options may not be as beneficial next time. Some of those decisions are made for her without her. This is the crux of my argument, the options aren't always in our favor. As for your home purchase, the variables are generally not apparent at the time you make your decision. My personal experience has been, the seller will not divulge the issues that the buyer cannot prove. I am happy you're happy with your house and the strength of position it affords you. Your ability to advantage your situation to your benefit is something to be proud of. The unlucky, foolish, and incapable deserve to live without us making it harder, which is unfortunately how it is... Harder.

 

[Challeco]

It's a challenging problem. Taxing fuel more-or-less was proportional to usage, but we can't really do that with electricity. We can tax the vehicle at the time of sale, but this inhibits adoption and does not incentivize conservation. Taxing during annual registration can capture the usage, but will be burdensome and very unpopular.

We could tax tires, but that would just encourage keeping them until worn down to the rims, lol

Or, buying tires from the wrecking yard.

 

[Tinker71]

Normally, I am right there with you on these posts. But this one, not so much. My post wasn't an attack upon personal choice. Nor was it against leveraging your assets to your advantage. Your sister, found an apartment close to her need so she doesn't require personal transportation. Your house purchase, while a smart move on your part, is not necessarily an option for others.
What I was trying to get across to Tinker, is his dismissal of the poor is cruel. The way I was trying to explain my point boils down to "it is expensive to be poor". We could take this into the weeds, but I do not want to waste your time, or mine. Your sister made a good decision based her current status. If she changes jobs, the options may not be as beneficial next time. Some of those decisions are made for her without her. This is the crux of my argument, the options aren't always in our favor. As for your home purchase, the variables are generally not apparent at the time you make your decision. My personal experience has been, the seller will not divulge the issues that the buyer cannot prove. I am happy you're happy with your house and the strength of position it affords you. Your ability to advantage your situation to your benefit is something to be proud of. The unlucky, foolish, and incapable deserve to live without us making it harder, which is unfortunately how it is... Harder.

I resent being called cruel. I empathise with their plight. I even suggest some short term subsidy to help them out of their predicament. I don't like regressive taxes, but sometime tax is a great way to steer people into doing something healthier anyway. ($6 smokes) What I don't accept is long term coddling and subsidized life style to no end. We started our reliance on the car in the 50s by building out the highway system at the expense of rail lines. Millions of acres of farmland have been paved over. For along time people moved out of town, bought a cheap little lot, only to find themselves stranded from jobs and services and then 5 years later they found that hundreds of others did the same thing and they didn't even have the peace, quiet and freedom of the country anymore. It is a vicious cycle. They did it because it was cheap(subsidized)

STOP SUBSIDIZING ROADS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SPRAWL. INVEST IN URBAN CENTERS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC SPACE. MAKE AMERICA MORE COMPETITIVE BY NOT WASTING BILLIONS IN TRANSPORTATION COST.

We created this problem over 70 years. The fix will not happen overnight.

 

[Ogre]

Maybe Tesla can solve this by using the Boring machine to build underground housing. Build 3 parallel rings under the city center, all foot/ bike traffic and slow moving robots with escalators to the surface. Middle ring is housing, center ring is clockwise, outer ring is anti-clockwise.

 

[Crissa]

Normally, I am right there with you on these posts. But this one, not so much. My post wasn't an attack upon personal choice. Nor was it against leveraging your assets to your advantage. Your sister, found an apartment close to her need so she doesn't require personal transportation. Your house purchase, while a smart move on your part, is not necessarily an option for others.
What I was trying to get across to Tinker, is his dismissal of the poor is cruel. The way I was trying to explain my point boils down to "it is expensive to be poor". We could take this into the weeds, but I do not want to waste your time, or mine. Your sister made a good decision based her current status. If she changes jobs, the options may not be as beneficial next time. Some of those decisions are made for her without her. This is the crux of my argument, the options aren't always in our favor. As for your home purchase, the variables are generally not apparent at the time you make your decision. My personal experience has been, the seller will not divulge the issues that the buyer cannot prove. I am happy you're happy with your house and the strength of position it affords you. Your ability to advantage your situation to your benefit is something to be proud of. The unlucky, foolish, and incapable deserve to live without us making it harder, which is unfortunately how it is... Harder.

No.

You dismissed options for the one option which precludes the others.

People only 'need' to own cars because of arguments like yours normalizing it.

'Oh they need to own cars so we should make cars cheap' is the excuse that plots much development that becomes 'oh but they own cars'.

Car-built infrastructure blocks walkable city design. It soaks up investment from busses. It makes bicycling dangerous. And it's used as an excuse why we don't need rail.

-Crissa

PS - I'm not angry here, just stringent. I don't think poorly of any of you! As Tinker pointed out above, we have been heavily subsidizing this 'need' for cars. But more than just the money - we build these things that become a regressive tax. The car and the roads that make it a requirement is the regressive tax, not the 'paying for the roads' that already exist.

 

[Ogre]

'Oh they need to own cars so we should make cars cheap' is the excuse that plots much development that becomes 'oh but they own cars'.

Exactly. Before we had car based infrastructure, people were able to take care of the basics of life.

The before/ after picture of Park Avenue shows it well.

It was called Park Avenue because it was a park.

 

[Challeco]

No.

You dismissed options for the one option which precludes the others.

People only 'need' to own cars because of arguments like yours normalizing it.

'Oh they need to own cars so we should make cars cheap' is the excuse that plots much development that becomes 'oh but they own cars'.

Car-built infrastructure blocks walkable city design. It soaks up investment from busses. It makes bicycling dangerous. And it's used as an excuse why we don't need rail.

-Crissa

PS - I'm not angry here, just stringent. I don't think poorly of any of you! As Tinker pointed out above, we have been heavily subsidizing this 'need' for cars. But more than just the money - we build these things that become a regressive tax. The car and the roads that make it a requirement is the regressive tax, not the 'paying for the roads' that already exist.

We are going down a rabbit hole here. I am not arguing against ridding the world of cars and their infrastructure. I am arguing that wealth and life expenses are inversely related. Being poor costs every last cent to exist in our society. Being wealthy costs less to meet daily needs. I am addressing the cruelty of regressive taxation, and as you expanded upon taxation to include reoccurring expenses as regressive, it strengthens my point further. As a capitalist society we are cruel to those who have little. My point continues to be don't make it worse.
Further, none of my comments suggest that everyone needs a car. I am addressing the ignored reality that we all do not live in dense urban environments. Cities plan transportation based on needs and revenue. The I-5 corridor through Oregon is population dense, which provides economy of scale for creative solutions. This is not true for the I-84 corridor. This has far reaching effect, as the distances traveled daily for work, (bike, walk, run, drive, or fly) are inverse to population density. Time is money. One of my coworkers walked to work for years from her rented home in Union. This walk was because she could not afford a reliable vehicle. Her commute occupied up to three hours one direction each day. Almost another shift not paid. 6 hours a day not available for family or life. If she cannot afford reliable transportation in a nonprofit situation (when you own, you do not profit off of yourself), then hiring a for profit vehicle for daily use is a larger cost. Distance is money. For clarity Union is 15 miles by road, slightly less by country road and public space. at a brisk 5mph constant that is 3 hours. For comparison I drive to work, it takes me 5 minutes. This afforded me time to work a second, and a third, job to augment my professional wages. The house I purchased was within my budget, I had the credit and the veteran's benefits, and barely enough saved cash to afford breaking out of renting. However, it was not close to work, it was in disrepair, and had been discounted because it had been on the market for over a year... in a strong sellers market.
I will always support improvements to social and commercial environments, but currently and historically it is expensive to be not wealthy.
This leads me full circle to my reaction to Tinker's original comment, it is a cruelty to burden the non-wealthy with more regressive taxation... in any form.
I am invested personally, and financially in moving away from our carbon economy. I agree entirely with engineering pedestrian centered society. My battle is entirely against any more burdens upon the non-wealthy. Cars are, currently, a necessity. Let us work toward making them not a necessity while making this transition period one where the vehicles aren't trash and toxic.

 

[Challeco]

I resent being called cruel. I empathise with their plight. I even suggest some short term subsidy to help them out of their predicament. I don't like regressive taxes, but sometime tax is a great way to steer people into doing something healthier anyway. ($6 smokes) What I don't accept is long term coddling and subsidized life style to no end. We started our reliance on the car in the 50s by building out the highway system at the expense of rail lines. Millions of acres of farmland have been paved over. For along time people moved out of town, bought a cheap little lot, only to find themselves stranded from jobs and services and then 5 years later they found that hundreds of others did the same thing and they didn't even have the peace, quiet and freedom of the country anymore. It is a vicious cycle. They did it because it was cheap(subsidized)

STOP SUBSIDIZING ROADS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SPRAWL. INVEST IN URBAN CENTERS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC SPACE. MAKE AMERICA MORE COMPETITIVE BY NOT WASTING BILLIONS IN TRANSPORTATION COST.

We created this problem over 70 years. The fix will not happen overnight.

$6 smokes? Really? How is that working out against the for profit manufacturers of tobacco? The same corporations that manufacture tobacco are the same ones that manufacture vape juice. So their for profit business model should be running out of money because everyone is quitting their addiction to nicotine. All because the taxes are too high. Regressive taxation is cruel. In every version.
The evidence your present of suburban sprawl ignores social engineering, it ignores the technology of the time, it ignores the benefits of the engineering feats.
I do not know you but from your expressed points of view, I get the impression that you are wealthy enough to have your needs met without diminishing financial assets. These talking points show an ignorance to the real world situations millions of us workers have to manage every day.

You may resent being called cruel. I have explained my reasoning. Accept it or not.

 

[Challeco]

Exactly. Before we had car based infrastructure, people were able to take care of the basics of life.

The before/ after picture of Park Avenue shows it well.

It was called Park Avenue because it was a park.

Urban engineering by businesses. Do you want me to show you a photo of my town in the 1920s and now in the 2020s? I have the pictures, just not scanned. I can tell you though, Adams avenue is still there, with the same facades, the same cross streets, the same snow abatement process... The roads in the pictures are based on population. What is the change of population of New York between the two pictures? New York is well known for its taxi network, public transportation, and regularly promotes pedestrian traffic. It is a massively dense city.

 

[Crissa]

Urban engineering by businesses. Do you want me to show you a photo of my town in the 1920s and now in the 2020s? I have the pictures, just not scanned. I can tell you though, Adams avenue is still there, with the same facades, the same cross streets, the same snow abatement process... The roads in the pictures are based on population. What is the change of population of New York between the two pictures? New York is well known for its taxi network, public transportation, and regularly promotes pedestrian traffic. It is a massively dense city.

...and one picture shows a street only 20% of vehicle traffic and the other has 90% to vehicle traffic - which do you think adequately compares sq footage to actual road users?

This is where your argument fails. You basically said 'oh, but the poor people' and then argued for the road that actually privileged the non-poor over the poor.

More people actually climb the subway stairs each day than travel that pavement reserved for cars.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

$6 smokes? Really? How is that working out against the for profit manufacturers of tobacco? The same corporations that manufacture tobacco are the same ones that manufacture vape juice. So their for profit business model should be running out of money because everyone is quitting their addiction to nicotine. All because the taxes are too high. Regressive taxation is cruel. In every version.
The evidence your present of suburban sprawl ignores social engineering, it ignores the technology of the time, it ignores the benefits of the engineering feats.
I do not know you but from your expressed points of view, I get the impression that you are wealthy enough to have your needs met without diminishing financial assets. These talking points show an ignorance to the real world situations millions of us workers have to manage every day.

You may resent being called cruel. I have explained my reasoning. Accept it or not.

Maybe $10 smokes and $.02 per ton mile will get more people to quit unhealthy habits.

 

[Challeco]

Maybe $10 smokes and $.02 per ton mile will get more people to quit unhealthy habits.

What happens when a poor person cannot afford fuel? What happens when an addict cannot afford their substance? What happens when a rich person is taxed more at the pump? What happens when a rich addict is faced with a price increase for their substance?
The poor person walks. It takes more of their personal time in travel time and the cascade of consequences begins. But, they have to eat, so the paycheck keeps their focus. The addict will bargain or steal, or sell something precious, but they will get their substance as the rat brain demands. The rich person complains about the cost and continues to pump. The wealthy addict may doubtfully bargain, definitely complain, but they will afford their substance.

Your regressive taxation idea is cruel. It impugns from the bottom up, forcing the powerless to creative solutions. It will NEVER affect those at the top of the financial mountain. Regressive taxation, in all of its forms over the past several centuries has never succeeded in its intended purpose. Not once. It has always made it worse.
If you really want things to change? Follow Elon Musk's business model. Charge the wealthy for something fancy, sexy, unique. Use that revenue from the top to fuel the next iteration that slightly less wealthy can enjoy. Use that collective revenue to keep working toward the poor.

Sponsored