REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.
Quote: At least we're not charged AGAIN to use it, like this bullet train will.
yep, yep...agree. and it would probably be a high fair, as well.
Where do you think our tax dollars go? Do you really think interstates maintain themselves? Do you think when they need to build additional lanes to accommodate increasing traffic volumes they just sprout up out of the ground? Do you think when a road needs resurfacing after years of use it just fixes itself? Who do you think pays for all of that?
For a point of reference the 405 is currently being widened at a cost of over a billion dollars. Do you think we'll see a return on that investment from commuters getting to work 3min earlier each day when it's finally done?
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
SolventSolution
Miki Dora status
Reged: 05/23/05
Posts: 4929
Loc: that beach by the ocean
Quote: no skully, i never thought that at all. vehicle registration is an annual occurance. thus money is accrued for roads...annually.
So we do pay for them "again", year in and year out. With vehicle registrations as well as federal, state and local taxes from things like income, sales and fuel. We pay for them constantly.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Community, imagine surfing at your local beaches and not driving.
What I like to do is drive everywhere possible, then at night I relax by jogging on a treadmill and watching TV. Screw walking around the neighborhood and meeting my neighbors, I would much rather watch reality TV.
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
Yes...heaven forbid we break even on our projects, are produced on budget and are useful to the masses .
Please stop thinking about governing like a career politician. This is why people like Jerry Brown and Gray Davis need to stay the fark out of government and California.
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
Yes...heaven forbid we break even on our projects, are produced on budget and are useful to the masses .
Please stop thinking about governing like a career politician. This is why people like Jerry Brown and Gray Davis need to stay the fark out of government and California.
shut up Focker.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
urchin
Michael Peterson status
Reged: 10/20/04
Posts: 2135
Quote: no skully, i never thought that at all. vehicle registration is an annual occurance. thus money is accrued for roads...annually.
So we do pay for them "again", year in and year out. With vehicle registrations as well as federal, state and local taxes from things like income, sales and fuel. We pay for them constantly.
yes, i understand. that is why i pointed out to surfdog that a FREEway shouldn't be in all caps, because it's not completely free. but you don't pay a toll to drive the freeway. which is what surfdog was pointing out.
although, i should have pointed out that the ticket to ride the train is covering the vehicle and fuel. thus, you are hiring a driver to take you on the free-rail.
Quote: no skully, i never thought that at all. vehicle registration is an annual occurance. thus money is accrued for roads...annually.
So we do pay for them "again", year in and year out. With vehicle registrations as well as federal, state and local taxes from things like income, sales and fuel. We pay for them constantly.
yes, i understand. that is why i pointed out to surfdog that a FREEway shouldn't be in all caps, because it's not completely free. but you don't pay a toll to drive the freeway. which is what surfdog was pointing out.
That's a fair point. Surfdog's way of conveying it was a bit disingenuous or ignorant. Never sure which with him.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
Quote: Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
You addressed zero points I raised.
That's because I was responding to a different post.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Redundant? So what is the future mode of travel in California, a car?
Well, putting aside the fact that many travelers for that route already prefer to fly, why is the continued use of cars assumed to be a problem? Are you basing that assumption on the idea that cars will always use gasoline or diesel?
BTW, as a point of fact the reason for the military is in support of our foreign policy, which itself is based on our trade-based economy. You know, the one that made us rich in the first place. So yes, there is usually an economic element to our use of the military. That foreign policy effectively extended our golden age past its expiration date so in that respect it did serve us well economically in the past. I think that cost-benefit ratio has reversed and it's time to reorganize, but that doesn't alter the reasons we were using it in the first place.
I'm not talking about fuel I'm talking about how inifecient car travel is in California and how preposterous is the notion that we can expand the roads forever to follow the traffic growth. It's unbelievable to me that you think that having a single person per car, sitting in traffic jam for hours is an acceptable mode of travel for you.
First off, the topic of discussion at hand is the one HSR project through the Central Valley. So if you're counterpoint is that sitting in a traffic jam is less efficient than riding that train I guess that would be so if there were a lot of traffic jams along the majority of that route.
But that's an assumption that is not currently in evidence, so your comment above comes up a bit short as far as making sense goes.
Now if you want to apply your traffic jam argument beyond this project into commuterville then I invite you to read the last few posts I've been making wherein I state my preference for local transit improvements. That's hardly the rationale of a never-say-never attitude toward mass transit, is it?
Quote: As for your weak military argument, that's a helluva inefficient business model and the one that deserves to fail. If it was up to the "free market" you so cherish it would have failed long ago but since it's up to the tax payer to keep it afloat, with not a word of criticism from either side, we will continue to throw money down the military drain.
Like I said, the returns used to be higher but now that's over so our nation is drawing down its military. Perhaps you've seen articles to that effect in the media. If not, you should possibly pay attention to what's going on.
At any rate, our foreign policy didn't just materialize out of thin air during those terms when the evil Republican presidents were in office. A similar number of the angelic Democrat presidents pursued variations of those same policies when they were in office. As well, those activities increased over time. That means that a lot of people on both sides of the bench thought that foreign policy was paying off.
And you might want to reconsider your crack about what has and hasn't paid off for our economy. We build alliances and trade agreements in order to develop markets to whom to sell our goods and services. I think it's fair to say that strategy worked quite well for us in the past. So while not every one of those trade agreements or commercial contracts had a military signatory, many of them wouldn't have happened if not for our foreign policy, one element of which is our use of the military all over the world. We wouldn't have extended ourselves that way had it not been profitable for us to do so.
But like you and others have said, that's not working so well anymore so now it's time to spend more at home. That's fine, to the extent that we think those expenditures will somehow be productive for us. But if one of the primary arguments is the redistribution of those funds during construction, there are other projects that could function the same way and some of them might even have a better return.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
Quote: Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
Lookit, I know you hate it when those inconvenient numbers come up to cloud your humanitarian wishlists but the fact remains that cost-benefit is not a mode of analysis reserved strictly for business.
I presume you use some sort of cost-benefit analysis to operate your own operating budget every month. I strongly suspect you weigh your options when it comes to buying your groceries or planning your entertainment for the evening or weighing which vendor to buy your weed from or whether you have enough on hand to buy the skinny jeans with the lycra that accentuate your curves so nicely.
Churches and social orgs of all kinds plan their operations primarily based on the limitations of their resources. Surfers plot and scheme on their next board purchase using a variation of a cost-benefit analysis. I daresay that aside from emergency services there are few other endeavors people engage in as inviduals, families or other groups that DON'T involve consideration of costs v benefits.
BTW, both costs and benefits are also measured in terms other than dollars, too.
Just because businesses also do it as a means of survival doesn't make it inherently evil or cruel. Nor are you being cruel when you decide you don't have the cash and can't afford to make that extra purchase. Sure, it would be "nice" to have the asset, but not if you can't afford to buy it.
Post Extras:
Random Guy
Duke status
Reged: 01/16/02
Posts: 23509
Quote: Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
Lookit, I know you hate it when those inconvenient numbers come up to cloud your humanitarian wishlists but the fact remains that cost-benefit is not a mode of analysis reserved strictly for business.
I presume you use some sort of cost-benefit analysis to operate your own operating budget every month. I strongly suspect you weigh your options when it comes to buying your groceries or planning your entertainment for the evening or weighing which vendor to buy your weed from or whether you have enough on hand to buy the skinny jeans with the lycra that accentuate your curves so nicely.
Churches and social orgs of all kinds plan their operations primarily based on the limitations of their resources. Surfers plot and scheme on their next board purchase using a variation of a cost-benefit analysis. I daresay that aside from emergency services there are few other endeavors people engage in as inviduals, families or other groups that DON'T involve consideration of costs v benefits.
BTW, both costs and benefits are also measured in terms other than dollars, too.
Just because businesses also do it as a means of survival doesn't make it inherently evil or cruel. Nor are you being cruel when you decide you don't have the cash and can't afford to make that extra purchase. Sure, it would be "nice" to have the asset, but not if you can't afford to buy it.
was there a cost benefit analysis done on any of the recent wars? sorry if someone already fulfilled the requirement of asking this question i haven't been paying close enough attention to this cowabunga rg
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
Well, in the case of Afghanistan one of the benefits we were seeking was some payback as well as putting a crimp in their ability to inflict more damages (aka costs) on us. So yeah, I'm sure you could break that down into a cost-benefit analysis.
As for Iraq the initial claim sold to the majority of the federal gov't was obviously false, but as many of the detractors of the war have claimed all along we had ulterior motives - economic in nature - for going there, too. The catch is that if they're right then there's an economic analysis involved there too; but if it wasn't about the economics then they're wrong. They can't have it both ways. That is, unless they're using Estrogen Logic instead of science. (LOL)
That some of these bets don't pay off is nothing new. Although a couple of you guys are going to go ballistic when I say this, I think Johnson's Great Society bet turned out to be a huuuuge loser. These bets don't always pay off, leastwise not in the way originally intended.
We're just all along for the ride anyway, so I'm not inclined to get real hot about it one way or another.
That state's current financial situation is grim at best. The state is being forced to cut services at most of the state agencies for lack of resources. There are cities in California that are filing for bankruptcy - again as a result of income not matching spending.
That's not a moral judgement but rather an observation of the obvious. "Wanting" something is always easier than paying for it. If they can find the money to pay for it then i'm sure they'll build it. If not then the reason it didn't happen was for lack of resources at the state, county and local levels; not the war in Iraq or the federal income tax rates or Roe v Wade or the separation of Church and State issues.
Post Extras:
Surfdog
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 04/22/01
Posts: 5711
Loc: Oceanside,CA
What many seem to be forgetting here, is this isn't fully fed gov funded project by any stretch. The feds are LOANING seed money to get this monstrosity started, and that's it. They're loaning the equivalent of probably 2%, at best 3%, of the cost to get this thing on the ground. California has to finish this thing off, and it's more than broke, it on the verge of default. Where are the funds going to come from to finish this? Where? This is not the 1950's. The state has NO money for teachers and other necessities, but plenty for a bullet train?
If the feds were going to pay for a majority of this, then I'd say have at it. They waste billions at the drop of a hat. California doesn't have that luxury.
-------------------- did you surf today?
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6699
Loc: down there by the harbor
It's preposterous to claim that people prefer flying to trains when they never experienced anything but slow, antiquated diesel trains that connect destinations nobody cares about.
200mph, car loadable train between SD and SF would see a lot of use if it's done properly. As did Eurostar that will take you (and your car) from the center of London to center of Paris in 2 hours, the trip that would take you 6+ hours if you were flying. No checking in 2 hours prior, transport to/from airport, seat belts, annoying flight attendants. Free wifi, nice scenery, bar..... if it exists elsewhere, it can exist here, the only obstacle is your attitude towards it.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
The question isn't whether the line can be built. It can. The question is whether it's worth building. The question is whether that's the best use of those resources. Should we want this benefit enough to pay its costs? What other public services are we willing to forego in order to score this bauble?
The whole discussion reminds me (a lot) of the local controversy we have in the SD region over the Charger's proposal to build a new NFL stadium in town. Obviously the fat cats want the city to pay for half of it, to the tune of $400 million dollars - that amount surely escalating before it's over because now the economists say it will cost $1B to build it.
As usual, the pro-developer crowd in town want to build it and use it as the cornerstone of another orgy of downtown redevelopment where the only winners will be the developers. The sports fans want it for obvious reasons. But most other people in the region think the potential benefits don't come anywhere near the costs.
So everytime the topic comes up for discussion the two sides break down into their familiar roles. The opponents of the project don't like it because the numbers don't come anywhere close to working. The returns don't justify the costs. they want the club to pay it's own way and build its stadium on its own dime. So they argue the numbers.
Kinda like the people who think this HSR proposal is unworkable. The numbers don't seem workable so they argue the numbers.
The numbers clearly don't favor the stadium proponents so they are extremely careful to avoid addressing those numbers at all. They totally ignore that portion of the discussion - Kinda like yous guys have been doing. Instead, they resort to various version of the emotional appeal. They cite the civic pride angle (similar to your Euro-envy) and say San Diego can't consider itself a world class city unless it has an NFL team and Superbowl-worthy stadium. They cite how nice the game day experience will be (similar to you extolling the virtues of train travel). They call anyone who opposes the project because of the finances obstructionists and narrow minded (just like you guys have been doing).
That's not the only public money boondoggle locally, either. The city politicos want to build a new palatial Class A office building downtown for City Hall, at a cost of $900m. Again, an expense the city can ill afford given the bankrupt condition of it's pension fund and operating budgets. The two sides in that controversy are lined up the same way as for the Stadium - opponents cite the numbers and the proponents carefully avoid rational analysis and go straight for the emotional hooks: civic pride, gem of the city, etc.
The many parallels between those local controversies and this very discussion are uncanny.
One of those parallels is that I think those projects are unfeasible for the same reason I'm thinking that the HSR project in unfeasible - the benefits don't seem to warrant the costs.
Post Extras:
afoaf
Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Reged: 06/25/08
Posts: 9848
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
Yes...heaven forbid we break even on our projects, are produced on budget and are useful to the masses .
Please stop thinking about governing like a career politician. This is why people like Jerry Brown and Gray Davis need to stay the fark out of government and California.
shut up Focker.
Wow, a subtle ad hominem attack. Just about what I expected from you. I'd make a "short" joke but it's to obvious.
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6699
Loc: down there by the harbor
200mph, car loadable train between SD and SF would see a lot of use if it's done properly.
zzzzzzzz....
Exactly, you can also sleep on it unlike if you drive to SF.
Did I mention that the train goes under the fcking English channel, it's profitable, no stale peanuts and no baggage charges? Oh yeah and it costs way less then a plane ticket (about $50 each way).
GDaddy, you keep skirting your own arguments. First you say that train travel is a "redundant mode of travel" then when challenged you claim that people prefer flying, now you talk about something else. Trains are awesome. Just admit that you don't like progress.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
ratfink
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 6441
Loc: Texas Gulf de Mexico
Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
200mph, car loadable train between SD and SF would see a lot of use if it's done properly.
zzzzzzzz....
Exactly, you can also sleep on it unlike if you drive to SF.
Did I mention that the train goes under the fcking English channel, it's profitable, no stale peanuts and no baggage charges? Oh yeah and it costs way less then a plane ticket (about $50 each way).
GDaddy, you keep skirting your own arguments. First you say that train travel is a "redundant mode of travel" then when challenged you claim that people prefer flying, now you talk about something else. Trains are awesome. Just admit that you don't like progress.
Those something else's that you're referring to are additional reasons. Kinda like dogpiling. I see that you don't have any substantiative responses to those "something else's, either. At least you're consistent.
You're wholly incapable of explaining how we're going to pay for it or respond to the question of how it's going to benefit us beyond "riding them is awesome". BTW, that's one of those emotional hooks I was talking about above. Next, the ad hominem you used to declare that I hate progress is another standard knee-jerk response that I was talking about above. You're following the script I described to the letter. You are doing that because you can't argue the numbers - it apparent even to you that they don't make any sense whatsoever.
It's not your fault that you're reduced to offering such weak and worn responses - that's all there is because the facts are against you.
For example, London and Paris are centers of commerce - big ones; and they're only 200 miles apart. When talking about a California application, that makes a $50 fare and 2 hour trip (not counting commuting to/from the train station, loading and unloading) to get from San Diego to, say, Bakersfield obscenely time consuming and expensive compared to driving a car. No stale peanuts in your car, either.
Moreover, Sacramento is a relative backwater as far as trade, commerce and tourism are concerned. Hardly anyone has a reason to go there (unlike London and Paris), and building a new HSR line isn't going to suddenly create new reasons to go. Even you haven't come out and said it will create new traffic.
Why don't you address the prospect that some of the jobs on the operation side of a new rail system will come at the expense of other jobs gutted from existing bus, rail and airline carriers that already service those routes? That means that the net gain in employment will not equal the number of new employees on the HSR line. And that's just for starters. Sure, we're adding some additional indirect employment relative to the HSR but it stands to reason that we'll lose a commensurate number of indirect employment because of the losses in the alternative modes of travel. So the numbers being touted as a net gain are...exaggerated right from the outset. Just like the ridership projections and the understated development costs.
Trains may be awesome - when there's a reason to use one. New sports stadiums are awesome, when they pay for themselves. New City Hall buildings are awesome, when we have the money to buy such trinkets. But it doesn't look like that time is now.
If you can point to any kind of analyses that says otherwise I'm happy to reconsider. But by now I'm sure you realize that even the most optimistic projections still don't show any feasibility.
One more tidbit to undermine the claim that we need the system now - annual population changes in California for the last 10 years are down to about 1%/year. It would be less than that if not for what immigration adds. Based on that I'm not seeing the development of NYC style densities in the west in your children's lifetimes.
Post Extras:
ifallalot
Duke status
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 17981
Loc: Carlsbad, CA
I'd rather have cities spending on infrastructure than a stadium, and I love sports.
There is not enough evidence that municipalities make the money back that they put into a stadium. Sure, a new stadium can revitalize an otherwise blighted area, but is that worth millions of tax payer money that is also funneled back into the stadium when the same people buy tickets? That, and the fact that the leagues and owners are some of the richest people in the US and can afford their own poop.
-------------------- The only two things in life that make it worth livin is guitars tuned good and firm feelin women
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6699
Loc: down there by the harbor
I gave you few examples of things that are very useful and don't make money, like the roads you drive on, police, firefighters and yes, contrary to your nebulous argument, the military (this argument of yours is so retarded that deserves its own thread really). In comparison, the train system in this country would actually make some money.
In my first post in this thread, I said that the problem with the train network like this would be the lack of public transport on the other end (destination) which would be enough to put most people off, unless they can put their car on the train, like you can elsewhere. Can you load your car on an airplane? Would you really rather drive for 7 hours, put mileage and wear and tear on your car, spend gas money rather then sit in comfort, be entertained or perhaps be productive (on erBB of course) and arrive in half the time, fresh instead of drained from a 7 hour drive? Did I mention no TSA?
Agree that Sacramento or Bakersfield are not a destinations anybody would want to go to, that wasn't my argument. I commented on your pretty ridiculous statement that trains are a "redundant mode of travel" while of course never mentioning the alternative other than the good old car. If you don't like where the train is going you can argue that but throwing the baby with the bath water is regressive.
America is made for a high speed rail system, the problem is the attitude people like you have towards progress and change in general. Be it health care, clinging to the most retarded infrastructure in the civilized world or claiming that one person to a car as the most efficient mode of transport, you just love to hang on to a status quo. That why they call you a conservative I guess.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
ifallalot
Duke status
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 17981
Loc: Carlsbad, CA
I will continue to maintain that cars still are the most efficient and convienent mode of transportation. I, like many Americans, don't like public transportation because we are on other people's schedule instead of our own.
If the oil companies would let it happen a true alternative to gas would continue to let cars be the best mode of transport. CNG and/or ethanol would be a great alternative until something could be invented that didn't spew CO and CO2 into the atmosphere
-------------------- The only two things in life that make it worth livin is guitars tuned good and firm feelin women
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
The SD downtown ballpark did indeed add a fair bit of fuel to the redevelopment of that area. But redevelopment had already been underway; the area had previously been designated as a redevelopment zone.
I don't normally do cut-n-pastes but a couple guys here think I'm pulling stuff out of my ass when I comment on various economic and development issues so I'll let someone else provide the explanation:
Quote: What is a California Redevelopment Agency?
JANUARY 20, 2011 BY MATT FULLER, GRI 3 COMMENTS
Unless you’ve been living under a rock , you may have heard that California has both a major budget deficit and a new governor. One of the proposals to balance the California budget from our new Governor, Jerry Brown, (full disclosure, I voted for him) is to eliminate California Redevelopment Agencies . There have been quite a number of San Francisco projects that have been funded by these agencies, and until I heard about the budget proposal I had really never given much thought to what they are. And why eliminating them would be a good or bad thing. Based on the reading I’ve done so far, I can only surmise that I have a lot more reading to do, but here is a brief summary of what I’ve learned so far.
Background: California Redevelopment Agencies were first authorized in 1945. The idea is (and was) to fix up blighted, decaying, and forgotten areas, which will in turn raise the value of surrounding property taxes, which will in turn create more tax revenues for everyone.
How California Redevelopment Agencies Work, in a very simple nutshell:
Redevelopment agencies are entities created to make the initial investment to enable redevelopment, and they are allowed to take a portion of future tax increases (created by the increase in taxes due to the increase in value caused by the work) to pay for the initial investments. Its a solution to the classic chicken and egg problem. You believe you’ll make more money in the future if  you invest money today. But you don’t have any money today to invest. So you create the redevelopment agency to issue bonds or other debt instruments, and create a future revenue stream that will provide investors with a level of certainty that their investment will be paid back and they’ll make a little bit of money in the process.
So why is this a California budget issue?
Redev agencies are guaranteed a cut of the future incremental tax increases (take your basline property taxes, the amount that the area currently generates in its blighted condition. Subtract this from the amount of taxes that will be generated when the area is redeveloped and you have your incremental tax increase. Roughly, in a nutshell). And it is that money (the incremental taxes) that Jerry Brown would like to have back, thank you very much, to help balance the budget.
Is this a good idea?
Depends on who is talking. Some feel that these agencies are an inefficient and costly way to achieve development goals, and that there are better ways to accomplish redevelopment in California . Others feel that there is a multiplier effect from the work that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and additional forms of revenue for the state, and that to eliminate them is a very short sighted and ultimately destructive activity that will come back to haunt California budgets in the future.
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6699
Loc: down there by the harbor
Quote: I will continue to maintain that cars still are the most efficient and convienent mode of transportation. I, like many Americans, don't like public transportation because we are on other people's schedule instead of our own.
If the oil companies would let it happen a true alternative to gas would continue to let cars be the best mode of transport. CNG and/or ethanol would be a great alternative until something could be invented that didn't spew CO and CO2 into the atmosphere
In many cities, like London, that absolutely not true. You can get faster around town on public transport than you could ever do in a car. You can step out of your house and be on the tube or bus within minutes , wherever you live. How long do you think Southern California can keep expanding it's roads to follow the traffic growth? How about the parking? There's a limit and it will happen. What then?
The problem of course is that America is built around the car, while England was built before the car existed. We need to re-think the concept of suburbia and malls that requires us to drive everywhere.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
As the above article explains, the redevelopment agency retains 79% of the increases in property tax revenues for those parcels. It means that if a parcel of vacant or blighted industrial building was previously assessed at, say $150k but was later developed into a residential high-rise condo project with 100 units that sold for $350k each the redevelopment agency would retail 79% of the property taxes on the $35m in property tax assessments.
It also means that 79% less of those assessments are going back to the County Assessor for its disbursements. In effect, a redevelopment agency scavenges some of the funds that the County and State governments would otherwise get.
That's why Gov. Brown proposed to "appropriate" those redevelopment agency funds for a couple years - to get some of that money back.
There are a number of redevelopment agencies in SD County. Obviously the most successful one is the Centre City Redevelopment Agency, which has jurisdiction over the area around the Ballpark. The redevelopment agencies in Vista and Escondido did okay too. Most of the others have failed pretty hard.
In the case of the ballpark area, the projects in proximity to the Ballpark itself did pretty well, but any projects located more than a few blocks to the east have failed pretty spectacularly. They got built but the masses didn't come. If SD does decide to build the Charger stadium downtown I'm sure there will be some more successes - it might even pull the current failures out of the ashes.
But according to the critics (including Gov. Brown), these successes are being subsidized by everyone else in the state who doesn't live in one of these jurisdictions. Supposedly the shut-down of these agencies will return $5B per year back to the state. Obviously it won't solve their problem but it's a start.
Post Extras:
Steak
Kelly Slater status
Reged: 11/09/10
Posts: 8185
Loc: No Country for Old Men
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Quote: I will continue to maintain that cars still are the most efficient and convienent mode of transportation. I, like many Americans, don't like public transportation because we are on other people's schedule instead of our own.
If the oil companies would let it happen a true alternative to gas would continue to let cars be the best mode of transport. CNG and/or ethanol would be a great alternative until something could be invented that didn't spew CO and CO2 into the atmosphere
In many cities, like London, that absolutely not true. You can get faster around town on public transport than you could ever do in a car. You can step out of your house and be on the tube or bus within minutes , wherever you live. How long do you think Southern California can keep expanding it's roads to follow the traffic growth? How about the parking? There's a limit and it will happen. What then?
The problem of course is that America is built around the car, while England was built before the car existed. We need to re-think the concept of suburbia and malls that requires us to drive everywhere.
Obviously I agree with you about the increased efficiency of a transit system in a high density urban environment. As I understand it London charges people quite a bit to own a car or drive within their city limits. That's a disincentive to own or use a car in town. People who don't own cars are more compelled to use mass transit for any travel out of town, too. So penalizing people for their cars helps to subsidize the alternatives.
But as you said, most of the development in *most* areas of the U.S. other than San Francisco and the Northeast came after people already had cars - and the freedom to live on their own terms. So the key to getting the public to "re-think the concept of suburbia and malls that requires us to drive everywhere" is to disincentivize that freedom.
Gotta raise taxes on gas - and $1/gallon more won't do it. Gotta make parking at or near work more expensive. Gotta make driving in town prohibitive for most people. Those penalties will make the property values in the target urban areas go up, make those apartments in the high rises more valuable, and cluster more people closer together in the 24/7 urbanized lifestyle. You know, the one that Ricky and Lucy sacrificed much for to escape when they took little Ricky out to the burbs. The one that many workers in NYC flee after they get married and decide to raise a family.
If California's population is only "growing" by 1%/year it's going to take a long time before suburbia becomes obsolete. And that's assuming the current rate of increase never slows down or - God forbid - reverses the way that's currently happening among various population groups throughout the industrialized nations. That's assuming the employment doesn't continue to decentralize. That's assuming that job culture requiring your physical presence onsite 5-days a week doesn't continue to decline.
Those are assumptions that may or may not pan out. Right now, I wouldn't bet on any of them.
I don't think the natural barrier to suburbia in this region is transportation. I think that water and power will become the big problem.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7135
Loc: Carlsbad
Quote: You can get faster around town on public transport than you could ever do in a car.
As I said above, same thing in Mexico City. Still apples and oranges. The bottom line is Californians are not gonna give up their cars.
Not unless they are forced out of them.
Fixed
We are now talking about how to put the genie back in the bottle. How to make the benefits of owning a car less than the costs.
It's one thing to continue to develop transit systems for a populace that has largely never owned or used cars in their daily lives, and quite another to convert previous car owners into non-users after the fact. It's a huge cultural challenge. I don't think the difficulty can be overstated.
Quote: You can get faster around town on public transport than you could ever do in a car.
As I said above, same thing in Mexico City. Still apples and oranges. The bottom line is Californians are not gonna give up their cars.
Not unless they are forced out of them.
Fixed
We are now talking about how to put the genie back in the bottle. How to make the benefits of owning a car less than the costs.
It's one thing to continue to develop transit systems for a populace that has largely never owned or used cars in their daily lives, and quite another to convert previous car owners into non-users after the fact. It's a huge cultural challenge. I don't think the difficulty can be overstated.
There is absolutely zero foresight in conservative thinking. I love how you guys take everything to an absolute black and white extreme. Affordable Healthcare = Death Panels and Socialism despite the fact that all the business is still going to private companies. Now building a ***** train is forcing people not to drive?
Besides, we don't need to force anyone out of their cars. OPEC will do that for us. Every time there's a natural disaster in an oil rich region, political unrest, etc. our gas prices spike and people start car pooling, working from home, commuting by bike, taking the bus, etc. Sure prices eventually drop, but typically fifty cents for every dollar they go up. How much longer can we go at this rate before people can't afford to get around? We don't need a mandate to get people out of their cars. We need a viable option for them to choose whether they want to seek alternatives.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
ifallalot
Duke status
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 17981
Loc: Carlsbad, CA
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Being FORCED to drive is not freedom. Being forced to sit in traffic because there's no other way to get where you need to go is not freedom, it's bullshit freedom. Having alternative transportation options is freedom. If you still want to sit in traffic, please do. I would like options.
London started charging people who want to drive in the city (only non-residents) because the traffic in the city reached its threshold. It was impossible to park or get anywhere in a car. Luckily, the public transport alternative is excellent. This will happen in Southern California sooner or later, and there will be no alternative. Southern California is getting so densely populated at least in coastal areas that it can be considered a city. We already have Los Angeles traffic, it will only get worse.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
Steak
Kelly Slater status
Reged: 11/09/10
Posts: 8185
Loc: No Country for Old Men
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Why are you about this? Do you think we should continue to destroy environments with dams?
Hetch Hetchy supplies SF with the majority of it's drinking water.
Please tell me just what is going to replace it if it's torn down? Maybe we should divert So Cal's supply to pick up the slack???
That's not to mention the hit California will take to the electrical power grid if Hetch Hetch goes down. It works in conjuction with Diablo Canyon to cover the daily peak load periods. At night Diablo Canyon powers up huge pumps which lift water out of Hetch Hetchy to reserviors up in the Sierras. During the day at peak load periods that water is dropped down through the generators at Helms river to boost output. A really nice, efficient way of getting the electrical energy this part of the state needs. Maybe we should start buying power again from outside sources like Grey Davis used to do??? We saw how that turned out.
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Why are you about this? Do you think we should continue to destroy environments with dams?
Do you realize where SoCal gets it's electricity? It's the only reason you're able to live there.
Quote: SCE’s Big Creek Hydroelectric System generates approximately 1,000 megawatts of power which is 90% of SCE’s hydroelectric power and 20% percent of SCE owned power generation capacity. The Big Creek System, located in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, is comprised of 6 major reservoirs, 27 dams , 9 powerhouses, and miles of interconnecting infrastructure earning it the motto “The Hardest Working Water in the World.”
Post Extras:
Steak
Kelly Slater status
Reged: 11/09/10
Posts: 8185
Loc: No Country for Old Men
Quote: Never gonna happen. It'll traverse way too much private property. Imagine the cost of the buyouts for the right of way? environmental studies? The Sierra Club should be schitting themselves. Rail to where? who's gonna pick you up and lend you their car? Rent one? shoulda driven there in my own car to begin with... While ya'll are at it, why not propose another dam for more hydro-electricity. That'll go over good too.
Never gonna happen.
Dude,
This is California.
We don't build dams here, we tear down the ones we already have. Duh...
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
