[quote=“squattie, post:94, topic:24357”]Light rail money back in budget:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/31/2340200/light-rail-money-back-in-budget.html[/quote]
Sen. Bob Rucho, a Matthews Republican, said House Speaker Thom Tillis of Cornelius played a role in the money's return.“He had a very convincing argument,” Rucho said. “That it was needed.”
lol
Gang members and thugs need this line after all the riot attention at the transit center. I like how the disturber article says a restaurant owner wants the transit center moved away from center city, but was too fearful of reprisal to list his name. Isn’t that why they built the transit center? Free trips to hang out and harass at uncc would be a dream come true for gangs to expand there territory
Gang members have access to cars. Slinging drugs is a good paying job.
According to the disturber, the guy from the transit station murder had access to a Ford Escape on the UNCC campus that he took at gun point. Now he doesn’t need the bus or the choo choo
clt blames the parents, not mass transportation.
This is the smartest, most insightful thing you have ever said. I’m proud of you, clt. ;D
Well then I guess we should stop funding roads too.
We can all stop funding roads by not driving. We can’t all stop funding for the choo choo by not riding. Riders that want a choo choo should have to pay for it.
[quote=“MeanJoeGreen, post:109, topic:24357”]We can all stop funding roads by not driving. We can’t all stop funding for the choo choo by not riding. Riders that want a choo choo should have to pay for it.[/quote]Roads are not fully funded by gasoline tax.
There are tens of thousands of miles of road that are heavily subsidized. They carry less than 1000 cars a day, yet cost millions to build and maintain.
The only roads that truly pay for themselves are major highways that are used to transport goods. They help drive the economy. I shouldn’t have to subsidize thousands of miles of road that only support soccer moms getting home to their mcmansions.
There are millions of miles of roads (and other infrastructure as a result of the roads being built) that only support suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is heavily subsidized by the tax payers because of the massive amount of infrastructure that must be built to support a relatively low number of people per square mile.
It is the reason that so many municipal water and power suppliers are millions in debt and unable to pay down their loans.
Suburbia is subsidized at a much higher rate per person than urban projects. It has bled our county and state governments dry.
[quote=“Niner National, post:110, topic:24357”][quote=“MeanJoeGreen, post:109, topic:24357”]We can all stop funding roads by not driving. We can’t all stop funding for the choo choo by not riding. Riders that want a choo choo should have to pay for it.[/quote]Roads are not fully funded by gasoline tax.
There are tens of thousands of miles of road that are heavily subsidized. They carry less than 1000 cars a day, yet cost millions to build and maintain.
The only roads that truly pay for themselves are major highways that are used to transport goods. They help drive the economy. I shouldn’t have to subsidize thousands of miles of road that only support soccer moms getting home to their mcmansions.
There are millions of miles of roads (and other infrastructure as a result of the roads being built) that only support suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is heavily subsidized by the tax payers because of the massive amount of infrastructure that must be built to support a relatively low number of people per square mile.
It is the reason that so many municipal water and power suppliers are millions in debt and unable to pay down their loans.
Suburbia is subsidized at a much higher rate per person than urban projects. It has bled our county and state governments dry.[/quote]Is it also true that suburbanites pay more in aggregate taxes than unbanites?
[quote=“Nugget, post:111, topic:24357”][quote=“Niner National, post:110, topic:24357”][quote=“MeanJoeGreen, post:109, topic:24357”]We can all stop funding roads by not driving. We can’t all stop funding for the choo choo by not riding. Riders that want a choo choo should have to pay for it.[/quote]Roads are not fully funded by gasoline tax.
There are tens of thousands of miles of road that are heavily subsidized. They carry less than 1000 cars a day, yet cost millions to build and maintain.
The only roads that truly pay for themselves are major highways that are used to transport goods. They help drive the economy. I shouldn’t have to subsidize thousands of miles of road that only support soccer moms getting home to their mcmansions.
There are millions of miles of roads (and other infrastructure as a result of the roads being built) that only support suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is heavily subsidized by the tax payers because of the massive amount of infrastructure that must be built to support a relatively low number of people per square mile.
It is the reason that so many municipal water and power suppliers are millions in debt and unable to pay down their loans.
Suburbia is subsidized at a much higher rate per person than urban projects. It has bled our county and state governments dry.[/quote]Is it also true that suburbanites pay more in aggregate taxes than unbanites?[/quote]
Suburbanization is arguably the most government subsidized initiative our country has ever been involved with domestically.
As for the current tax burden, it depends on how you evaluate it. Infrastructure in itself is very difficult to keep affordable, however if the suburbanization didn’t take place in the same fashion, there would be less tax burden on individuals overall, as infrastructure would have been supporting existing areas and existing population, not speculative populations. In addition the infrastructure would be more maintenance driven than new facility driven.
Most neighborhood roads were paid for by developers. Most smaller roads are state roads and they carry tax payers not tax payees. The only reason roads are not funded by the gas tax is that the state and federal funds are stolen from in volume to fund other programs that are not related to roads and bridges.
They may be initially paid for by developers, but they are later turned over to the state for maintenance.
Same goes for other infrastructure upgrades. Water lines into sub divisions are paid for by developers, but they are maintained by the city thereafter.
[quote=“Niner National, post:114, topic:24357”]They may be initially paid for by developers, but they are later turned over to the state for maintenance.
Same goes for other infrastructure upgrades. Water lines into sub divisions are paid for by developers, but they are maintained by the city thereafter.[/quote]And of course when you say “paid for by developers” what you really mean is paid for by the homeowner in their purchase price. Small distinction perhaps, but important.
[quote=“Nugget, post:115, topic:24357”][quote=“Niner National, post:114, topic:24357”]They may be initially paid for by developers, but they are later turned over to the state for maintenance.
Same goes for other infrastructure upgrades. Water lines into sub divisions are paid for by developers, but they are maintained by the city thereafter.[/quote]And of course when you say “paid for by developers” what you really mean is paid for by the homeowner in their purchase price. Small distinction perhaps, but important.[/quote]Initially yes, in some cases, just depends on the area, but roads are not a one time cost. Water lines are not a one time cost. Sewage lines are not a one time cost. This stuff must be updated and replaced. After construction is completed, they are turned over to the state or local utility/municipality and everyone must then pay for them to keep them in acceptable condition.
When you only have a single dwelling on an acre of land, that is a lot of space between homes that roads and pipes must bridge together to service a very small number of people compared to the amount of material used. It is a lot more to maintain and there are countless more opportunities for problems/damages to occur.
[quote=“Niner National, post:116, topic:24357”][quote=“Nugget, post:115, topic:24357”][quote=“Niner National, post:114, topic:24357”]They may be initially paid for by developers, but they are later turned over to the state for maintenance.
Same goes for other infrastructure upgrades. Water lines into sub divisions are paid for by developers, but they are maintained by the city thereafter.[/quote]And of course when you say “paid for by developers” what you really mean is paid for by the homeowner in their purchase price. Small distinction perhaps, but important.[/quote]Initially yes, in some cases, just depends on the area, but roads are not a one time cost. Water lines are not a one time cost. Sewage lines are not a one time cost. This stuff must be updated and replaced. After construction is completed, they are turned over to the state or local utility/municipality and everyone must then pay for them to keep them in acceptable condition.
When you only have a single dwelling on an acre of land, that is a lot of space between homes that roads and pipes must bridge together to service a very small number of people compared to the amount of material used. It is a lot more to maintain and there are countless more opportunities for problems/damages to occur.[/quote]
Keep also in mind that the municipality has made a decision to bring them into city limits to gain their tax revenue in most cases, otherwise those people would have wells and septic tanks. Most people in the country would gladly give the city back their water and sewer lines and not pay the city tax.