A State House Bill is being considered that would create a pilot project allowing some cities and towns to charge residents, businesses and government entities for maintenance of urban streets. Spokane is one of the cities that would be eligible to use this funding source.
So why call the charge a utility fee as opposed to a tax? Because it would reflect the correlation between a property and the estimated number of vehicle trips from that property.
While some cities are supporting the bill, the main opponents are from the private sector. The Seattle Times has the story.
Thoughts?
4 comments:
Thoughts ...
Where are my credits for riding my bike all of the time and only driving about 150 miles a month?
On the other hand... if they use some of my utility for more bike & ped infrastructure, maybe I would be ok with not getting a credit.
;-)
Well I still prefer a gas tax, but I also know there is very little chance that will pass. They want a stable income source not a slowly diminishing source of income like the gas tax while costs of building and repairing the roads continues up every year.
The article says that gas prices would increase 'slightly' so I'm guessing your credit for riding your bike would be that you're not spending that extra amount on gas if you're not driving. Not much of a credit though huh? But I guess that's all you're getting currently anyway.
The current gas tax already isn't covering what's being paid out for transportation each year so something new is in order. Although I've also heard talk of doing both if it can be swung politically; raising the gas tax marginally AND implement another funding source, although the general public would probably have a problem with that.
Post a Comment