Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
LA Is Number One American City...in Traffic Congestion
The Los Angeles metropolitan area led the nation in traffic jams in 2005, with rush-hour drivers spending an extra 72 hours a year on average stuck in traffic, according to a study released on Tuesday.
The metropolitan areas of San Francisco-0akland, Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland, and Atlanta were tied for the second most gridlocked areas, according to the study by the Texas Transportation Institute.
There are solutions to such problems, but they all require rethinking the current (public) ways that roads are planned, built, and maintained (or not maintained).
As readers of reason know, "Traffic Jams Are Made In City Hall," and they can be solved, or at least greatly reduced through a series of five improvements ranging from creative construction, smarter management, market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and privatization. Read all about it--while you're stuck in traffic wasting as much as an extra 72 hours a year--hey, watch out for that stopped car!--here.
|9.19.07 @ 7:55AM|#
1) I sense the approach of joe.
2) It be Talk Like a Pirate Day, swabbies, so get yer piratey slang
a-workin'! Yarr!
|9.19.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Just for a bit of matter of perspective, 72 hours is about .8
percent of the total time one spends in a year.
Compare that to the time spent engaged in other, equally useless
activities, it doesn't seem that bad.
|9.19.07 @ 8:26AM|#
Detroit was in a three-way tie with San Jose, California,
and Orlando, with average delays of 54 hours...
Woohoo, O-town! Made it in the top ten! Take that,
Tampa!
Oh, and Jake, if you're not going to help me taser Dan T., I'm not
talking like a pirate.
|9.19.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Putting aside the probablity that peak oil will solve many of
our traffic problems, the obvious short-term solution is to tax the
hell out of gasoline.
The problem is, the oil companies run the government and they
really don't want us to buy less of their product.
|9.19.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Speaking as a DC traffic warrior pirate, let me
just say I'm shocked. Shocked, I say that we're number 2.
L.A. rigged the numbers. Argh! We wuz robbed! We'll be #1 next
year, me hardies!
robc|9.19.07 @ 9:45AM|#
It seems the "obvious" solutions are within those mentioned by
Nick:
market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and
privatization.
The 1st 2 can be handled by the 3rd.
|9.19.07 @ 9:54AM|#
I was in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago, and I was shocked at how
light the traffic was compared to Seattle. And I don't think I saw
any construction. At this time of year, you cannot go anywhere in
Seattle without running into contstruction of one sort or
another.
the oil companies run the government and they really don't want
us to buy less of their product.
You'd think, if that was the case, that being a troll would make
you shove a steering wheel down your pants and scream "ARRGH! It's
driving me nuts!" at the top of your lungs.
|9.19.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Los Angeles is also dead last in percentage of drivers who can read traffic signs written in English.
|9.19.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Would someone elaborate on how privatization of roads would
actually work ?
If my house on a street that is privatized, it doesn't seem fair
that I'd have to pay a private company the privilege of driving to
my own home ?
And I agree, peak oil will effectively solve this problem. I also
think we should stop using our Military to subsidize oil
prices.
|9.19.07 @ 10:22AM|#
I think Dan T. and Joe have recently demonstrated some
non-trollish behavior. Their tones are obnoxious, but no more so
than is typical of this forum, and recently I've noticed a number
of valid points coming from both of them. Dan T. makes a valid
point above.
I understand why they stick around, they get a lot more attention
here than they would on forums of their own political bent. Here,
they have the power to steer every conversation, to make every
thread about them and their opinions. Many threads begin with an
express invitation for their input. That's remarkable.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Tim,
I dont know how well privatization of local access roads would
work. But it works really well for interstates and other exit based
roads.
Check out Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway. There are other
examples too.
|9.19.07 @ 10:27AM|#
I understand why they stick around, they get a lot more
attention here than they would on forums of their own political
bent. Here, they have the power to steer every conversation, to
make every thread about them and their opinions. Many threads begin
with an express invitation for their input. That's
remarkable.
Can't speak for Joe, but I don't really want the threads to be
"about" me, since that almost always means enduring insults.
But I do like to debate issues and so it makes sense to go to
boards where my opinion is in the minority. Also, as I've indicated
before, I'm in reality a lot more sympathetic to libertarian ideas
than what I let on so to some extent I'm just putting them to the
test here.
Some of you guys are really cool about it and fun to engage. Some,
not so much.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:28AM|#
I was in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago, and I was shocked at
how light the traffic was compared to Seattle.
Clearly you werent driving on the northside perimeter at rush hour.
I didnt think Seattle was too horrible the one time I was there
(2000). I go to Atlanta often and used to live there and it goes
from awful to somewhat light depending on location, direction, and
time of day. Maybe Seattle is more consistently crowded?
|9.19.07 @ 10:29AM|#
It seems the "obvious" solutions are within those mentioned
by Nick:
market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and
privatization.
The 1st 2 can be handled by the 3rd.
I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads
is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be
able to get around.
|9.19.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Well, I took your "oil companies run the government" to be a troll-type comment. I was about to make a coherent response, but why bother.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Dan,
You are fine when you are not being trollish. When you
intentionally misunderstand in order to "put an idea to the test"
it is frickin annoying. Stop doing that.
|9.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Would someone elaborate on how privatization of roads would
actually work ?
If my house on a street that is privatized, it doesn't seem fair
that I'd have to pay a private company the privilege of driving to
my own home ?
Driving to your own home? From where?
Perhaps you and the others on your street would own a cooperative,
or it would be owned by the development owner (depending on where
you live). Access to other privately owned roads would be something
they would use as a selling point, and it would come out of your
yearly fee.
That obviously wouldn't cover everyone, but that's just an example
of how it could work.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and
roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to
be able to get around.
People for thousands of years got around on foot.
|9.19.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Well, I took your "oil companies run the government" to be a
troll-type comment. I was about to make a coherent response, but
why bother.
It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but there's no
denying that oil interests have an awful lot of sway over
government policy (case in point: Iraq).
I don't see how that's any more trollish than the very frequent and
exaggerated claims about how the government wants to control
everybody's lives.
|9.19.07 @ 10:38AM|#
People for thousands of years got around on foot.
True, but they were not living in communities that were designed
with automobile travel in mind. I suspect there are very, very few
places in America where you can live successfully without the use
of a car or public transit.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:38AM|#
case in point: Iraq
I have been saying this since before it even started, if the war in
Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela instead.
Episiarch|9.19.07 @ 10:39AM|#
I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and
roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to
be able to get around.
Seeing that roads are currently paid for through taxes (often gas
taxes), if roads were privatized, these taxes would (yeah, right)
be eliminated. This would place that money back in the hands of the
driver, who could then use it to pay for the toll.
TAANSTAFL, Dan, and people are paying no matter what they do. This
would make they payment more direct and would foster comepetition
to keep prices down.
|9.19.07 @ 10:40AM|#
...the obvious short-term solution is to tax the hell out of gasoline.
I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.
Do I sense a logical disconnect here?
|9.19.07 @ 10:40AM|#
"...that village near Kissimmee."
Kissimmee- home of the Big Bamboo Lounge, one of the coolest bars
ever. Although I have heard a rumor that it is now gone. Replaced,
no doubt, by a car wash.
-----
Grossly underpriced/ subsidized e-z parking is a major contributing
factor to trafffic and congestion.
robc|9.19.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Dan T,
Within most metro areas, most people could get around with a
bicycle just fine. Also, market pricing on parking/roads would
probably make the bus into a good deal, might even make bus/trains
profitable. Wouldnt need to be public buses then.
|9.19.07 @ 10:42AM|#
It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but there's no
denying that oil interests have an awful lot of sway over
government policy (case in point: Iraq).
So do feminists(title IX), terrorists (patriot act), and
accountants (tax code). So would it be an equal exaggeration to say
that terrorists run the government?
Oh, wait...
|9.19.07 @ 10:47AM|#
"I suspect there are very, very few places in America where you
can live successfully without the use of a car or public
transit."
It's the manifest Will of the People, Dan. Let 'em move to Munich
if they want to ride on a trolley.
K.|9.19.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I have been saying this since before it even started, if the
war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela
instead.
Venezuela is developing its oil resources and bringing them online
pretty well, afaik. Iraq was (and still is) way below its
potential.
|9.19.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Seeing that roads are currently paid for through taxes
(often gas taxes), if roads were privatized, these taxes would
(yeah, right) be eliminated. This would place that money back in
the hands of the driver, who could then use it to pay for the
toll.
TAANSTAFL, Dan, and people are paying no matter what they do. This
would make they payment more direct and would foster comepetition
to keep prices down.
Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads everywhere
so drivers could choose the one with the lowest price?
|9.19.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads
everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest
price?
Why do they need to be parallel? If a city is laid out in a grid,
why not take avenue B instead of avenue A?
|9.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
In Honolulu (and I imagine, in other cities as well) there are a lot of parking garages where, if you get your parking ticket stamped by the business you're buying from (restaurant, or whatever), you get a free hour or two of parking time for that visit.
|9.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Oh, and that comment was meant to display how garage owners aren't the only ones who have a say over how much the person who parks pays for said parking.
|9.19.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Why do they need to be parallel? If a city is laid out in a
grid, why not take avenue B instead of avenue A?
Because maybe the business I need to get to is on avenue A.
Frankly, with all the other things we've got to worry about I'd
just assume not have to try to figure out what the cheapest set of
roads are to get to any destination every time I went
somewhere.
Episiarch|9.19.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads
everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest
price?
Nice troll, Dan--I answered your question regarding poor people
affording the tolls, but you completely ignored that and asked a
stupid question instead.
Thank you for reminding me not to take you seriously.
|9.19.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Frankly, with all the other things we've got to worry about
I'd just assume not have to try to figure out what the cheapest set
of roads are to get to any destination every time I went
somewhere.
Do you always buy the cheapest everything? Or do you may more for
some goods/services for convenience, quality, etc? It would be
cheaper for me to drive to JFK and fly to Austria instead of using
my local airport, but frankly it's not worth the cost savings to me
to put that much effort in.
|9.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
...the obvious short-term solution is to tax the hell out of
gasoline.
I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads
is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be
able to get around.
Do I sense a logical disconnect here?
Sort of. I guess any additional gas tax would have to allow for tax
credits for the poor combined with more public transit
options.
But I do think that the tax would work better because having
"competing" streets is logistically impossible.
|9.19.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Nice troll, Dan--I answered your question regarding poor
people affording the tolls, but you completely ignored that and
asked a stupid question instead.
Thank you for reminding me not to take you seriously.
So what's stupid about it? You're saying that competition would
drive down the cost of private roads, and I'm asking exactly how
that would work. For competition to exist, the customer has to have
choices.
|9.19.07 @ 11:07AM|#
I lived in LA for two months during an internship. I never in my
whole life thought I would still see congestion on major highways
at 8-9PM. Not even Chicago is that bad.
And it took me about 4.5 hours to drive to Tijuana (Which judging
by only distance, would be about a 1 hour drive anywhere else).
|9.19.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Perhaps you and the others on your street would own a
cooperative...
So, a group of people in an area would share ownership and the
costs of a street? How is that different from public streets
again?
|9.19.07 @ 11:08AM|#
"... garage owners aren't the only ones who have a say over how
much the person who parks pays for said parking."
Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility the parking garage
in question was built by the city, using federal and state money in
much larger proportion than local dollars, and the garage owners
are, in fact, the taxpayers. But they don't get a dividend check
from their "investment."
Skip|9.19.07 @ 11:08AM|#
I would be interested to see what our cities would look like had there never been subsidized roads/highways.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Dan T,
So, a group of people in an area would share ownership and the
costs of a street? How is that different from public streets
again?
Okay, this is what I was talking about above with intentional
misunderstanding, but in case you really are that stupid:
One is a privately entered into agreement, like owning shares in a
corporation, which is private. One isnt.
Multi-owners does not make it public. It is still privately owned.
Do you really not get the difference?
BTW, its the same as our HOA/government argument. An HOA isnt a
government. A private corporation isnt public.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Dammit PL, that was my argument from the other thread. Although, I guess I did give up the flying cars argument when I said we would have teleportation booths by now.
|9.19.07 @ 11:14AM|#
You're saying that competition would drive down the cost of
private roads, and I'm asking exactly how that would work. For
competition to exist, the customer has to have choices.
And when the lease is up on the road in question, the customer
could opt to have another company maintain it. You know, if they
provided lame enough quality at a high enough cost.
|9.19.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads
everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest
price?
While I can't speak for city streets, privatizing things like toll
roads and other major highways works pretty well (I live in Indiana
which did this). If you don't want to pay the toll, you are more
than welcome to take the other routes. The Chicago skyway operates
the same way too and I don't think you'll find too many complaining
about it (I think it's still the fastest way to drive into Chicago
if I'm not mistaken)
|9.19.07 @ 11:19AM|#
One is a privately entered into agreement, like owning
shares in a corporation, which is private. One isnt.
Multi-owners does not make it public. It is still privately owned.
Do you really not get the difference?
I'm saying the difference is mostly semantic. A "public" street is
owned by the city, and what is a city but a collective group of
people?
Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal Government to
be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of the United
States. Then everybody would be happy.
|9.19.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal
Government to be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of
the United States. Then everybody would be happy.
I'll be happy if it means that I am free not to pay taxes to them
against my will. Until then, they are not a private company, no
matter how it is dressed up.
|9.19.07 @ 11:23AM|#
perhaps the average person would move more frequently and own less real estate. The burden to keep down road prices would be placed on the developer of the apartment building in order to keep his/her rents up. This is, of course, unless there was an alternative form of transportation that was used by most of the building tenants. They may be able to walk to work, or take a subway, or a bus easily, depending on where they worked.
|9.19.07 @ 11:24AM|#
I have been saying this since before it even started, if the
war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela
instead.
That tree hugger Alan Greenspan would disagree with you.
|9.19.07 @ 11:25AM|#
The Chicago Skyway is still public, they just leased it to a private company to maintain and operate.
|9.19.07 @ 11:26AM|#
I'll be happy if it means that I am free not to pay taxes to
them against my will. Until then, they are not a private company,
no matter how it is dressed up.
My homeowner's association makes me pay dues against my will.
|9.19.07 @ 11:26AM|#
I'm saying the difference is mostly semantic. A "public"
street is owned by the city, and what is a city but a collective
group of people?
Let me know when the city sends you a dividend check, Dan. A
collective of people on a street who own the road would not just
use the road for their own uses, but would be able to determine a
price for others to travel on the road. This may result in the road
paying for itself by through-travelers, or even turning a profit,
shared by the stakeholders. On the other hand, if none of them
care, they can just pave it with gravel, nobody will want to travel
on it if they don't live on it, and it will be really cheap.
|9.19.07 @ 11:28AM|#
My homeowner's association makes me pay dues against my
will.
No, you agreed to that when you signed the deed/mortgage.
|9.19.07 @ 11:29AM|#
No, you agreed to that when you signed the
deed/mortgage.
Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property there. I
didn't have a choice.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal
Government to be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of
the United States. Then everybody would be happy.
That would be fine if we had a specific enforcable contract saying
what the private organization could or couldnt do and I also have
the ability to buy more or sell my shares in the
organization.
Also, voting done by number of shares owned. Works for me.
|9.19.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Let me know when the city sends you a dividend check, Dan. A
collective of people on a street who own the road would not just
use the road for their own uses, but would be able to determine a
price for others to travel on the road.
Why couldn't a city do that?
I suspect that no city does because it's such an obviously bad
idea.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property
there. I didn't have a choice.
No. The share in your HOA is PART of the property. They are
connected, they are the same thing. Also, I bet there is an amount
of money you could pay the HOA to get that removed from your deed.
Like all private contracts, it is negotiable.
|9.19.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property
there. I didn't have a choice.
I don't get it, did someone put a gun to your face to force you to
buy that particular property? Were you not able to back out before
signing? You had plenty of choices, you just took one that you
regret.
I hate HOAs too, know what I did? I didn't buy a house that had an
HOA agreement.
|9.19.07 @ 11:36AM|#
That would be fine if we had a specific enforcable contract
saying what the private organization could or couldnt do and I also
have the ability to buy more or sell my shares in the
organization.
Also, voting done by number of shares owned. Works for
me.
So you're really just in favor of fuedalism. Sounds like a great
way to protect individal liberties.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:39AM|#
A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects
in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned
all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return
for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held
land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return
for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce. Under
feudalism, people were born with a permanent position in
society.
Hmmm....sounds nothing at all like what I described.
|9.19.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I don't get it, did someone put a gun to your face to force
you to buy that particular property? Were you not able to back out
before signing? You had plenty of choices, you just took one that
you regret.
I didn't say I regretted it, I'd just rather have the benefits of
living under a government without having to pay the taxes...er,
living under an HOA without having to pay the fees.
I hate HOAs too, know what I did? I didn't buy a house that had an
HOA agreement.
I think the taxes in New York City are too high, so I don't live in
New York City. So if you think Federal taxes are too high, why do
you live in America?
|9.19.07 @ 11:41AM|#
CoveAxe--if you don't like paying taxes to this government, why
don't you move to a place that has no taxes at all? Like
Somalia?
(Of course, there's not much in the way of infrastructure, but
that's the breaks, right?)
The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference
between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics
really pisses me off. According to libertarians, having a town
dominated by one employer who determines everything is Good because
the company is A Private Enterprise and If You Don't Like It You
Can Always Quit Your Job And Move Elsewhere (nevermind that you may
have no money because of the shit salaries and the fact that the
company can do whatever it damn well pleases. Libertarians have a
touching faith in the non-existence of employer influence on local
law courts and other mechanisms for supposed checks and
balances.)
|9.19.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Hmmm....sounds nothing at all like what I
described.
If you seriously think government should work where people with
money could buy additional shares, it would end up looking like
that.
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 11:43AM|#
if the war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded
Venezuela instead
If Bush fils had had a pre-existing grudge to settle with Hugo
Chavez (say, "finishing" an earlier war), maybe we would
have.
In Honolulu (and I imagine, in other cities as well) there are
a lot of parking garages where, if you get your parking ticket
stamped by the business you're buying from (restaurant, or
whatever), you get a free hour or two of parking time for that
visit.
Yes, this is the same means by which downtown Buffalo has attempted
to ape the suburbs and in the process pretty much destroyed
itself.
Speaking of competition, back when the NYC subways were private,
some lines paralleled each other all the way to the end, leaving
large gaps of the city with no service. Just thought I'd throw that
out there.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:45AM|#
If you seriously think government should work where people
with money could buy additional shares, it would end up looking
like that.
You were the one suggesting privatizing government, I just agreed
to go along with it.
Im in favor of a a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very (did I get the right number) tiny public government. But
I will take the private one over what we have now.
|9.19.07 @ 11:47AM|#
The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference
between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics
really pisses me off. According to libertarians, having a town
dominated by one employer who determines everything is Good because
the company is A Private Enterprise and If You Don't Like It You
Can Always Quit Your Job And Move Elsewhere (nevermind that you may
have no money because of the shit salaries and the fact that the
company can do whatever it damn well pleases.
Exactly. The more layers I uncover here, the more I realize that
the main problem libertarians have with democratic government is
that a poor person gets the same number of votes as a rich
person.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:48AM|#
The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference
between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics
really pisses me off.
Maybe we have this inability because it ISNT a matter of
semantics.
Ive been treated badly by corporations. Ive been treated badly by
governments. I have never felt powerless when dealing with a
corporation. Because I havent been.
|9.19.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Do I sense a logical disconnect here?
Sort of. I guess any additional gas tax would have to allow for tax
credits for the poor combined with more public transit
options.
Yeah the tax code just isn't complicated enough now.
|9.19.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Yes, this is the same means by which downtown Buffalo has
attempted to ape the suburbs and in the process pretty much
destroyed itself.
No, downtown Buffalo has astronomical taxes AND pay-for-parking,
and a gazillion surface lots. They keep fucking themselves up and
can't possibly imagine why.
|9.19.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Dan T -
watch yourself. Don't take what robc says and apply it to everyone,
and I don't think he really thought that either.
|9.19.07 @ 11:52AM|#
if you don't like paying taxes to this government, why don't
you move to a place that has no taxes at all? Like
Somalia?
So if you think Federal taxes are too high, why do you live in
America?
So wait, let me get this straight, you're comparing immigration, a
legal minefield where many countries determine your citizenship
just based on who your parents are, to a HOA, which is a completely
voluntary agreement that you have to go out of your way to get
into? Wow
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Rhywun,
If Bush fils had had a pre-existing grudge to settle with Hugo
Chavez (say, "finishing" an earlier war), maybe we would
have.
Exactly my point. The war wasnt about oil. The war was about a
personal score to be settled. I dont think it was the unfished war,
I think it was Saddam trying to have daddy assassinated - which I
actually consider a legitimate reason to have removed him from
power. If you try to have and current or ex president killed, no
matter how bad they were, even Carter or Bush II, I think it is
justified to go after you.
That doesnt mean I think the Iraq war is okay, especially not when
there were bigger problems in Afghanistan, but at least it would
have provided a legitimate basis for some sort of action,
maybe.
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 11:56AM|#
No, downtown Buffalo has astronomical taxes AND
pay-for-parking, and a gazillion surface lots. They keep fucking
themselves up and can't possibly imagine why.
The "astronomical taxes" are irrelevant to my point. Some high-tax
cities that HAVEN'T aped the suburbs are doing just fine (e.g. NYC,
SF).
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 11:58AM|#
The war wasnt about oil. The war was about a personal score
to be settled.
Actually, I think it's about both. There would not have been any
pre-existing score to settle with Saddam if not for oil, because
without oil we wouldn't give a shit about Kuwait.
robc|9.19.07 @ 11:59AM|#
The silliness of the buying shares in government idea in fact
proves that an HOA isnt a government.
I have 1 vote in my HOA. The couple next door to me have .5 votes
each. I already have more votes in my HOA than most of the others.
And, I can buy more votes just by buying a second property. I would
then have 2 votes, or 4 times the voting power of my
neighbors.
Its not just a semantic difference. There is a fundamental
difference in the operation of public and private
organizations.
|9.19.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I'm in reality a lot more sympathetic to libertarian ideas
than what I let on...
Some of you guys are really cool about it and fun to engage. Some,
not so much.
Okay Dan, I put the taser away.
ProLib: how's that baseball team down there workin' out for you?
Oh, wait, you're not a Rays fan, you're a Braves fan, aren't you?
How's that workin' out for you?
|9.19.07 @ 12:05PM|#
The silliness of the buying shares in government idea in
fact proves that an HOA isnt a government.
I have 1 vote in my HOA. The couple next door to me have .5 votes
each. I already have more votes in my HOA than most of the others.
And, I can buy more votes just by buying a second property. I would
then have 2 votes, or 4 times the voting power of my
neighbors.
Its not just a semantic difference. There is a fundamental
difference in the operation of public and private
organizations.
It's still a government, it's just not a purely democratic
government.
Although if one guy decided to buy 51% of the properties in your
neighborhood and start changing the bylaws to fine you every time a
dead leaf was found in your yard unraked, you might wish that it
was!
e|9.19.07 @ 12:08PM|#
When you intentionally misunderstand in order to "put an
idea to the test" it is frickin annoying. Stop doing
that.
But..but.. it's amusing when Stephen Colbert does it!
|9.19.07 @ 12:12PM|#
It's still a government, it's just not a purely democratic
government.
No, it's an association, it says so right in the name: Home owners
Association. Y'know, a *voluntary* association. Unlike true
guvmints, it's one you can opt out of any time you like (or not
join at all) and all that changes is your address.
You don't have to learn a new language or a new culture or
anything. Heck, you might even just have to move across the
street.
You can grok that idea, can't you Dan old boy? Just leave if you
don't like it.
|9.19.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Congestion can't really be solved by congestion pricing. All that does is postpone the day of reckoning without addressing the problem: lack of capacity. That's because congestion is the result of virtually criminal lack of construction of new roads to accommodate demand. In some cases (Portland OR) congestion is the knowing and intentional result of the city's rulers. Those bozos *want* Portland to be like LA. In others, cars are "evil" so they waste money on light rail projects, which also happen to bring in a lot more subsidy than road building despite their worthlessness as actual people movers. We used to make road building a priority; now we don't bother due to the absurd belief that "you can't build your way out of congestion". We make it worse by continually increasing density with infill residential construction near roads that weren't designed for that level of demand. Congestion is solvable, if you want to.
|9.19.07 @ 12:13PM|#
The "astronomical taxes" are irrelevant to my point. Some
high-tax cities that HAVEN'T aped the suburbs are doing just fine
(e.g. NYC, SF).
No, the "astronmical taxes" are not irrelevant. If you think the
parking situation downtown is what killed it, you're crazy. Also,
comparing Buffalo to NYC and SF (like a lot of urban Buffalo
activists like to do) is just plain retarded. That would be like
comparing policies in west bumblefuck, population 2,000 to
Buffalo.
Seitz|9.19.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Having lived both places for fairly long periods of time,
Chicago's traffic is much worse. But I'd argue that the study is
somewhat flawed. I would imagine that L.A. has more people
traveling longer distances than Chicago? I'd imagine that there are
more people commuting from San Bernardino or Riveriside to L.A.
than there are people from Gurnee or Frankfort commuting to
downtown Chicago. Commutes in Chicago just don't seem as long. So
if you're driving further and there's traffic, naturally you'll be
stuck in traffic longer. How much time is spent in traffic compared
to the time spent in a normal commute? I think that would be a
better metric.
As for the Skyway, it's a fairly quick way to go, usually, but the
problem right now is the Dan Ryan, which is awful. The only way the
Skyway makes good sense now is if you can take Lakeshore/Stony
Island to and from. Fortunately, I live in the city, so I can do
that if I need to head down that way.
|9.19.07 @ 12:16PM|#
The more layers I uncover here, the more I realize that the
main problem libertarians have with democratic government is that a
poor person gets the same number of votes as a rich
person.
Now that's just silly talk. Rich people don't need to vote; they
just buy congresscritters. Why buy just the milk when you can have
the whole cow?
e|9.19.07 @ 12:25PM|#
That's because congestion is the result of virtually
criminal lack of construction of new roads to accommodate
demand.
Waah!!.... the mean Portland government won't subsidize my desire
to drive at the expense of the majority's desire to have
alternative modes of transport! They're CRIMINALS!!
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 12:28PM|#
No, the "astronmical taxes" are not irrelevant.
Yes, they are, because tax rates vary more from region to region
than from city to suburb in the same region.
If you think the parking situation downtown is what killed it,
you're crazy.
When a downtown turns itself into just another suburb, in the
process demolishing half the building stock, there's no longer any
compelling reason to go there over any other suburb. Lively cities
are lively *precisely* because they remain cities.
Also, comparing Buffalo to NYC and SF (like a lot of urban
Buffalo activists like to do) is just plain retarded.
Buffalo is a metropolis of over one million people, whether you
want to admit it or not. The fact that the downtown has "given up"
its role as the center of the region doesn't mean it has to remain
that way.
robc|9.19.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Although if one guy decided to buy 51% of the properties in
your neighborhood and start changing the bylaws to fine you every
time a dead leaf was found in your yard unraked, you might wish
that it was!
51% isnt even close enough to the numbers to make that happen.
Also, unlike governments, there are contractural limits on what
changes they can make, even with 99% agreement. Plus, an HOA cant
annex property against that property owners will.
|9.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Rhywun:
so how precisely is this autonomous city supposed to regain its
roll as the center of business? Consider that every effort employed
by the city through "command-and-control" policies has
failed.
New York is a metropolis of over 20 million people. Buffalo is a
metropolis of over 1 million people. Hmmmm... My hometown is a
"metropolis" of over 50,000 people... does that mean I can compare
it to Buffalo?
|9.19.07 @ 12:37PM|#
BakedPenguin,
Oh, it's a poor season all around. The Rays have always been bad,
so that's not so much a problem, but watching the Braves fail to
win the division is annoying. At least I have the Gators and, for
one week at least, the Bucs.
|9.19.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Dan -
Do you not subscribe to the belief that small communities should be
able to determine what is best for them, rather than some feds
1,000 miles away creating a uniform system for everyone? You're
always saying that if a community has rules that you don't like,
you should move. A HOA is a lot like that, only the rules of your
contract can't change after you sign it, unlike they can in a
community after you move there. The HOA can't seize your property
to build a wider road. HOAs, if compared to governments, would be
extremely small ones where literally every person in the
association has signed a piece of paper agreeing to the terms. In
regular governments, all you need is 51% of the people to agree to
the terms, and 49% of the people to get screwed.
|9.19.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Plus, an HOA cant annex property against that property
owners will.
I've actually always wondered this. I've never been in a HOA so
excuse my ignorance, but if you're breaking the bylaws and you
refuse to pay them through fines, how do they make you pay?
robc|9.19.07 @ 12:47PM|#
CoveAxe,
The put a lien on your property.
That doesnt have anything to do with annexation though.
|9.19.07 @ 12:59PM|#
ProL: more than just the one week for the Bucs - remember, they play the Falcons twice this year.
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 1:10PM|#
so how precisely is this autonomous city supposed to regain
its roll as the center of business
Compete by offering something unique instead of imitating the
suburbs.
My hometown is a "metropolis" of over 50,000 people... does
that mean I can compare it to Buffalo?
I don't know why you're harping on the "compare" business. I
suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. But to spell it out for
you, comparisons are either useful or not. The fact that Buffalo
still has many of the same characteristics as other metropolises
such as NYC but on a smaller scale, makes the comparison useful to
me. The definition of a metropolis is fairly well-understood and
available on the Internet. You might not find it useful, but it's
hardly "retarded".
|9.19.07 @ 1:39PM|#
What about right of ways? There are a thousand years of
precedent for right of ways, and we can't just discard it in our
overzealous desire for complete privatization.
Early in this thread someone worried about having to pay to drive
to use the road in front of their home. But that's a right of way.
I used to work in a business whose only access was through a
private road. But we had a right of way, so that the road owner
could not exclude us from its use. There are many rural
agricultural areas that have the same situation.
I personally don't envision 100% road privatization anytime soon,
but if by some strange occurance we do, then that system is going
to have to account for right of ways.
|9.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Look, the point is that you can compare Buffalo to, say,
Louisville all you like. But comparing it to NYC is just silly
because their urban areas are off by a factor of 20.
So you're saying that the autonomous city of Buffalo will up and
offer something. You mean the city government of Buffalo will use
tax money (local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand stupid
schemes (Bass Pro, anyone?). I know that's not what you WANT it to
do, but that's what it does. Why give them more money = more power,
Rhywun?
|9.19.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Dan -
Do you not subscribe to the belief that small communities should be
able to determine what is best for them, rather than some feds
1,000 miles away creating a uniform system for everyone? You're
always saying that if a community has rules that you don't like,
you should move. A HOA is a lot like that, only the rules of your
contract can't change after you sign it, unlike they can in a
community after you move there. The HOA can't seize your property
to build a wider road. HOAs, if compared to governments, would be
extremely small ones where literally every person in the
association has signed a piece of paper agreeing to the terms. In
regular governments, all you need is 51% of the people to agree to
the terms, and 49% of the people to get screwed.
Reinmoose, my position is that HOA's are effectively a
type of government, not that they are identical in powers
and methods to other governments.
But membership is compulsory, taxes are levied, rules are created
and enforced, officers elected, and contracts are signed on behalf
of the community.
It seems to me that the main quibble here is that when you move to
a city, state, or country you don't explictly sign a contract
saying you'll agree to the rules.
Frankly, I have no idea why this is such a point of contention. For
people who claim to put individual liberty as the most important
ideal you folks seem to put a lot of stock in the notion that an
group can limit the liberties of its members as long as its
"private".
Consider this hypothetical: you own a house in a city, and the city
council votes to pass a law that says you have to mow your grass
once a week or be subject to a $50 fine. Most libertarians would
consider this to be an unnecessary infringement of government upon
the individual.
Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA that
decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under punishment of
a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that okay.
But from the individual's point of view, he's still being compelled
to mow his lawn against his will, even though having an unkept lawn
does not violate the rights of anybody else.
So at least in the case of government vs. HOA, we've got a
distinction without a difference.
|9.19.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Waah!!.... the mean Portland government won't subsidize my desire to drive at the expense of the majority's desire to have alternative modes of transport!
What majority? Portland's light rail system was voted down every
time it was offered for a vote. TriMet ignored the vote and built
it anyway. The MAX and tram systems were not on time, not on
budget, and failed to deliver any of their claimed benefits. As for
subsidy, so-called "alternative" modes of transport are subsidized
to a far higher degree than mass transit, because transit has such
low value users won't pay high fares. If anything, deliberate
attempts to create congestion as a scheme to induce drivers to take
transit is a subidy to transit.
robc|9.19.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA
that decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under
punishment of a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that
okay.
An HOA cant do that.
robc|9.19.07 @ 2:40PM|#
So you're saying that the autonomous city of Buffalo will up
and offer something. You mean the city government of Buffalo will
use tax money (local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand
stupid schemes (Bass Pro, anyone?). I know that's not what you WANT
it to do, but that's what it does. Why give them more money = more
power, Rhywun?
Thats exactly what Louisville has done (since that is the proper
comparison). Not Bass Pro (that's in southern indiana) but just
about every other stupid scheme they could think of. The last
stupid scheme has actually been slightly more successful than I
thought it would be, but some of the others took 10+ years to fail,
so Im not giving them any credit yet.
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 2:42PM|#
But comparing it to NYC is just silly because their urban
areas are off by a factor of 20.
No it's not silly--it's just a difference of scale. Otherwise
Buffalo and NYC are more similar to each other than Buffalo is to a
small town that is without: universities, orchestras, major
hospitals and all the myriad other things that large cities
have.
You mean the city government of Buffalo will use tax money
(local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand stupid schemes
(Bass Pro, anyone?).
Do you include the Skyway and Kensington Expressway among those
grand stupid schemes? How about public parking lots (as almost all
of them are)? The suburbanization of downtown Buffalo was every bit
as publicly financed as recent attempts to reverse it. No, I don't
support the Bass Pro thing. Corporate welfare is always wrong. But
I support policies that stop trying to pretend Buffalo can compete
with Amherst or Tonawanda on their terms. That means: Stop
requiring minimum parking allotments for new buildings. Stop giving
away free parking. Start encouraging building on parking lots that
were themselves once buildings. Be different! Or, continue to watch
your population decline as people flock to cities like NYC and SF
that haven't turned into suburbs.
|9.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA
that decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under
punishment of a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that
okay.
An HOA cant do that.
I'm pretty sure mine can. One of my neighbors reported getting a
warning letter about their grass being too high, and I'm pretty
sure they would have eventually gotten hit with a fine had they not
cut it.
robc|9.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I'm pretty sure mine can. One of my neighbors reported
getting a warning letter about their grass being too high, and I'm
pretty sure they would have eventually gotten hit with a fine had
they not cut it.
They can do it IF ITS IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SIGNED. They cant
change them (subject, once again, to your rules) all willy nilly
like a government can.
What I was saying they couldnt do is change the rules.
Gilbert Martin|9.19.07 @ 3:16PM|#
"Reinmoose, my position is that HOA's are effectively a type of
government"
And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a
development with a HOA. People who do so know what they are getting
into up front and individually choose whether they want to subject
themsevles to the rules by moving in or not.
No such individual choice is available when it comes to government.
There is no place in the country you can go that is not subject to
the rule of some government entity.
|9.19.07 @ 3:38PM|#
They can do it IF ITS IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SIGNED. They
cant change them (subject, once again, to your rules) all willy
nilly like a government can.
What I was saying they couldnt do is change the rules.
Ah, okay. I misunderstood.
I think you're incorrect, though. I'm pretty sure that most HOAs
have provisions that allow the association to amend the rules when
needed.
In fact, here's an interesting link:
By law, a majority of the homeowners in an association have to
approve any change in the bylaws. But many boards sidestep this by
simply changing their house rules, which are as binding as bylaws
but can usually be rewritten without asking all the homeowners.
"Even if you were to be given the rules today, they're probably
already out of date because [boards are] constantly making changes
to the rules at whim," says Elizabeth McMahon, a co-founder of the
American Homeowners' Resource Center, a San Juan Capistrano,
Calif., consumer group. "And they couldn't care less if you don't
like them."
At the Reston (Va.) Homeowners Association, for instance, only
residents who used the swimming pools and tennis courts had to pay
for their upkeep. But then in 1990, the board decided everyone
ought to chip in, and it polled members. More than 70% of those who
voted opposed the new rule, but it didn't matter. In the end, the
board pushed it through anyway, and fees climbed 26%. "They
disregarded the will of the people," says Thierry Gaudin, a Reston
homeowner, "and that was wrong."
It may be wrong, but it's the board's right. Period. "Bottom line,
the board has to have the right to run the show," says attorney
Benny Kass, who represents associations. About all you can do is
keep up to speed on any changes the board makes in the rules, and
if you don't like them, complain. The sooner you raise a fuss, the
better: Rules that have been around for a while tend to be the
hardest to change.
http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/51
|9.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Rhywun -
You have me completely confused about what your original problem
with parking garages was.
Stop requiring minimum parking allotments for new buildings.
Stop giving away free parking
Those are both issues that privatization and elimination of zoning
would solve. Why then do you have a problem with a private
developer building a parking garage, and then partnering with
businesses nearby so that the businesses pay a portion of their
customer's parking? I don't know what the exact arrangement is, but
I imagine that they probably get some sort of discount over people
who are just parking there but not frequenting the nearby
businesses. I fail to see how this arrangement exists in the
suburbs as suburbs do not generally have parking garages, nor do
they charge people for parking.
Dan\'s secret sockpuppet|9.19.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Gilbert, Dan's point is this...
And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a
development country with a HOA government. People who do so know
what they are getting into up front and individually choose whether
they want to subject themsevles to the rules by moving in or
not.
No such individual choice is available when it comes to government
HOA. There is no place in the country development you can go that
is not subject to the rule of some government entity
HOA.
Fixed.
There's alot of talking past each other on this thread, and to be
honest, I'm not sure I see the difference, just the
distinction.
Rhywun|9.19.07 @ 4:24PM|#
You have me completely confused about what your original
problem with parking garages was.
My problem with excessive parking in cities that were not built to
accommodate it is simple. It requires tearing down existing
buildings and lowering the variety of uses that you find there. My
point has nothing to do with how they're financed or whether it's a
garage or a lot. The point is that places like downtown Buffalo
have torn down much of the building stock, replaced it with parking
and surrounded it with expressways in order to imitate the suburbs.
I'm not advocating any "solution" or public financing. I'm merely
pointing out a living arrangement that once worked very well in
America and provides an example of one way of how to help alleviate
the ubiquitous congestion that is the subject of this post.
|9.19.07 @ 4:31PM|#
FYI:
In Honolulu, Rhywun, most of the parking garages are built into new
buildings (since most buildings there are, in fact, pretty new.
They also have one of the most used and most awesome bus systems in
the country, consistently winning awards from the APTA.
Yes, I consider the Skyway and the Kensington Expressway to be
among those stupid schemes(public money, confiscation of land (I
think), etc.) Most of their mistakes were made back in the 60s (as
was the case with most cities, Robert Moses, etc. etc.), but
Buffalo can't seem to get its head out of its ass long enough to
see that the answer is not more government penetration. Here I
think we agree somewhat.
|9.19.07 @ 4:45PM|#
In Dan T's defense, my HOA can do that. Mine isn't unique. My aunt's old HOA could do the same. The agreement we signed has provisions for amending the rules. So yes, if the majority decide they want to fine me for not mowing my yard, they can and will. If I don't like it, I have to mow, try to change their minds, or sell my townhouse.
Gilbert Martin|9.19.07 @ 5:05PM|#
"Gilbert, Dan's point is this..."
No, sockpuppet, neither you nor Dan has a point.
There is no such thing as a country without a government. A place
without a government is not a country at all. About the only places
left on earth that fit that description are the open ocean and
Antartica.
HOA's do not rule over every domestic dwelling in this country and
no one is forced to move into one if they don't like the rules.
There is no place in the country you can go that is not subject to
the rule of some government entity.
|9.19.07 @ 6:05PM|#
And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a
... country with a ... government. People who do so know what they
are getting into up front and individually choose whether they want
to subject themsevles to the rules by moving in or not.
Yeah, I knew what I was getting into as I emerged from the womb and
they thrust that "social" contract into my hands.
No such individual choice is available when it comes to ...
HOA. There is no place ... you can go that is not subject to the
rule of some ... HOA.
That's just 'tarded. In order for parallels to make sense, they
need to:
1) Be parallel.
2) Make sense.
e|9.19.07 @ 7:51PM|#
What majority? Portland's light rail system was voted down every
time it was offered for a vote. TriMet ignored the vote and built
it anyway.
After
voters approved funding for the Westside MAX extension,
.."
Apparently, at least one time, voters approved it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245