urbanSTL

Salon - Is a post-car future actually possible? Experts say yes — here's how we could get there

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/09/is-a-p ... get-there/

Not something that the federal government has any say over. Zero chance of becoming law in any case.

Great idea but should be done by loca munis. Many have already done so or have instead reversed wording for current minimums to be read as maximums. Typically has caused construction boom shortly after the change.

CityLab - A Belgian Lesson in Taming the Automobile

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... iving-less

^And of course Missouri is way at the wrong end of that curve. I wonder what policies might have gotten us there?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jun 19, 2023

StreetsBlog - Less Driving Is Possible — And These US Communities Are Already Doing It

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/06/15/ ... y-doing-it

I was a little disappointed that it just discussed metro-scale policy like light rail. I was hoping for more suburban-applicable stories like these:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/12/03/ ... or-suburbs

Flying cars are just around the corner and will fix this.

Human Transit - The Old, Old Idea of High-Tech Cars

Dense cities don’t have room for everyone’s car.  If too many people use cars, they take up all the available space and still get in each other’s way, which is what congestion is.

https://humantransit.org/2023/06/the-ol ... -cars.html

This 1973 essay on how cars have taken over our cities remains as relevant as ever:

https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-soc ... -motorcar/

“The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes .Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go wherever they want and aren’t restricted to asphalt roads.”

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2023

Flying cars are just around the corner and will fix this.

Human Transit - The Old, Old Idea of High-Tech Cars

Dense cities don’t have room for everyone’s car.  If too many people use cars, they take up all the available space and still get in each other’s way, which is what congestion is.

https://humantransit.org/2023/06/the-ol ... -cars.html

2028 muhahahahaha

Slate - Americans Spend Too Much Time in Cars. The Solution Is Simple.

As Tomer said: “Turns out, when you put more stuff near people, they don’t have to travel as far, and that has huge impacts on what we’re able to achieve economically and environmentally.”

https://slate.com/business/2023/06/subu ... tions.html

^Oh, now that sounds promising.

I'd wager MOLeg would have to pass something or the Hancock Amendment forbids doing what they're doing

Raising property taxes on vacant lots is good, no more than 3 percent rise on residential is a bad idea. Basically rent control for property, meaning shortages due to nobody wanting to sell. Reminds me of California’s controls on property values that didn’t work out and there are a lot of areas of the city where property values really need to go up. Seems very anti market and we would be better off taxing land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sort of happens with the Hancock Amendment. If all together, excluding new or improved stuff, the increase in assessed exceeds some amount, then the rate has to come down.

dtgwvc wrote: ↑

Aug 20, 2023

Raising property taxes on vacant lots is good, no more than 3 percent rise on residential is a bad idea. Basically rent control for property, meaning shortages due to nobody wanting to sell. Reminds me of California’s controls on property values that didn’t work out and there are a lot of areas of the city where property values really need to go up. Seems very anti market and we would be better off taxing land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto re LVT. If there is a single "silver bullet" idea to really help the City (there's not, but) it's surely the LVT. Gradually lower the improvements portion while raising the land portion of current real estate taxes in a budget neutral manner. We could add circuit breakers or longer phase-ins for owner-occupied properties, the elderly/impoverished, etc., if necessary to get political buy-in. Over time you could probably even ditch the earnings tax and fully replace it with LVT. 

Pretty sure that, if budget neutral, the Hancock amendment wouldn't be triggered. Unfortunately, as others point out, any change to taxation would most certainly require approval from MOGA. I'm doubtful a majority of those wise statesmen would ever do anything to help the city on purpose.

https://xkcd.com/2832/



-RBB

^Love it!