Submitted by Vance Longwell on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 9:47am.
Mr. Parker, I've tried for days to figure out how you are arriving at the conclusion that cyclists don't pay taxes. That being what I take away from everything I've seen you say. You are very careful to avoid using this exact language, but try as you might, that is exactly what you assert.
I don't own a car. By an extension of your own logic, I shouldn't have to pay anything for the maintenance of Portland's transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, I pay rent, and I'm sure my landlord is paying Oregon State Property tax. Property tax ends up in the general fund which, in turn, finances infrastructure, right? I'm sure that Commissioner Adams' new taxes are going to end up coming out of my pocket too. As does the gas-tax, even though I don't drive. Do you think the frieght-stakeholders magnanimously pay gas-tax for me, or do you suppose that they pass that expense on to me at the consumer level?
You've just spit-shined an ancient, defeated, pointless argument. That argument is the same one being had over single people funding schools. Or non-motorists paying for roads. The whole constituency benefits from the public-right-of-way. My guess? This is why they call it public.
Consider. The hardest you seem to be able to get that baby to spin is, "Bike specific infrastructure.". Your use of jargon is a blade that cuts both ways, it would seem, because that is a very specific statement. One for which you should be able to produce numbers, and not just condescending rhetoric.
The reality is, that some of the numbers you allege cover the cost of only a single, 'improvement', are actually closer to the cost of about everything that is being considered. For the record, that doesn't seem excusable as a mere coincidence. Again, bias, spin, whichever you like.
If you want to collect anything from cyclists, I would like you to explain how it would be done. Anything. If you would like, we can create thousands of new jobs with the City, County, and State, with the implementation of so much as a tire-excise tax. Each of those people will likely gross $3-$4K a month. That would certainly be good for the economy. We could then impose a $100 tax on every bicycle tire sold, and recoup some of that, ahem, other expenditure, to the tune of exactly precious little.
So we disagree on that, but I am still with ya. These, 'improvements to the bike infrastructure', do cost money, and any money spent on them is a waste. Add to that the idea behind most of these improvements, as dictated by the so-called cycling community, is to attract novice, and often incompetent, bicyclists to our streets. Our entire State budget isn't going to come close to making anyone safe from anything. As a free person living in a free society, I prefer to mitigate my own risk, and focus on my interaction with strangers who are tacitly trusting me with their life.
Paint on the road, some silly sign-age, and signaling, isn't going to do much. Nor do they cost all that much. However, 'Bike Boulevards', are a disastrous idea. If you think those speed bumps everywhere are stupid, you'll get a kick out of bike-boulevards. Plus, bike-boulevards come with the added bonus of getting bicycles of the roads, that they pay taxes for, and out of everybody's way. "Good little cyclist, you go ride on the sidewalks now.", isn't going to sit very well with me. All I've heard, for most of my adult life, is, "Same road, same rules."
Oregon Revised statute says (814.420) that bike-lanes are intended to be mandatory. No one is saying it yet, but I imagine cyclists are going to be banned from most of the public right-of-way, pretty soon. Cycling special-interest is playing right into their hands, so to speak. What cycling special interest fails to realize is that I have never seen a bike path put down anywhere that pedestrians don't end up screaming about, until they get to use it too. Plus, there is the question of added enforcement. Writing tickets cost a hell of a lot more than they collect, you know?
What cyclists will then have to look forward to, is having pedestrians call the shots, where it was once motorists. By endorsing Commissioner Adams' many green solutions, you are creating automobile congestion, are decreasing access to public right-of way that cyclists currently enjoy; and allowing the implementation of Nanny-State ideals. It is not up to the city what any of us spend our money on. They are there to keep things moving, not to so much as even imply that anyone change their lifestyle. That is pure Orewell you nit-wits.
The underlying concern
Mr. Parker, I've tried for days to figure out how you are arriving at the conclusion that cyclists don't pay taxes. That being what I take away from everything I've seen you say. You are very careful to avoid using this exact language, but try as you might, that is exactly what you assert.
I don't own a car. By an extension of your own logic, I shouldn't have to pay anything for the maintenance of Portland's transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, I pay rent, and I'm sure my landlord is paying Oregon State Property tax. Property tax ends up in the general fund which, in turn, finances infrastructure, right? I'm sure that Commissioner Adams' new taxes are going to end up coming out of my pocket too. As does the gas-tax, even though I don't drive. Do you think the frieght-stakeholders magnanimously pay gas-tax for me, or do you suppose that they pass that expense on to me at the consumer level?
You've just spit-shined an ancient, defeated, pointless argument. That argument is the same one being had over single people funding schools. Or non-motorists paying for roads. The whole constituency benefits from the public-right-of-way. My guess? This is why they call it public.
Consider. The hardest you seem to be able to get that baby to spin is, "Bike specific infrastructure.". Your use of jargon is a blade that cuts both ways, it would seem, because that is a very specific statement. One for which you should be able to produce numbers, and not just condescending rhetoric.
The reality is, that some of the numbers you allege cover the cost of only a single, 'improvement', are actually closer to the cost of about everything that is being considered. For the record, that doesn't seem excusable as a mere coincidence. Again, bias, spin, whichever you like.
If you want to collect anything from cyclists, I would like you to explain how it would be done. Anything. If you would like, we can create thousands of new jobs with the City, County, and State, with the implementation of so much as a tire-excise tax. Each of those people will likely gross $3-$4K a month. That would certainly be good for the economy. We could then impose a $100 tax on every bicycle tire sold, and recoup some of that, ahem, other expenditure, to the tune of exactly precious little.
So we disagree on that, but I am still with ya. These, 'improvements to the bike infrastructure', do cost money, and any money spent on them is a waste. Add to that the idea behind most of these improvements, as dictated by the so-called cycling community, is to attract novice, and often incompetent, bicyclists to our streets. Our entire State budget isn't going to come close to making anyone safe from anything. As a free person living in a free society, I prefer to mitigate my own risk, and focus on my interaction with strangers who are tacitly trusting me with their life.
Paint on the road, some silly sign-age, and signaling, isn't going to do much. Nor do they cost all that much. However, 'Bike Boulevards', are a disastrous idea. If you think those speed bumps everywhere are stupid, you'll get a kick out of bike-boulevards. Plus, bike-boulevards come with the added bonus of getting bicycles of the roads, that they pay taxes for, and out of everybody's way. "Good little cyclist, you go ride on the sidewalks now.", isn't going to sit very well with me. All I've heard, for most of my adult life, is, "Same road, same rules."
Oregon Revised statute says (814.420) that bike-lanes are intended to be mandatory. No one is saying it yet, but I imagine cyclists are going to be banned from most of the public right-of-way, pretty soon. Cycling special-interest is playing right into their hands, so to speak. What cycling special interest fails to realize is that I have never seen a bike path put down anywhere that pedestrians don't end up screaming about, until they get to use it too. Plus, there is the question of added enforcement. Writing tickets cost a hell of a lot more than they collect, you know?
What cyclists will then have to look forward to, is having pedestrians call the shots, where it was once motorists. By endorsing Commissioner Adams' many green solutions, you are creating automobile congestion, are decreasing access to public right-of way that cyclists currently enjoy; and allowing the implementation of Nanny-State ideals. It is not up to the city what any of us spend our money on. They are there to keep things moving, not to so much as even imply that anyone change their lifestyle. That is pure Orewell you nit-wits.