Environmental Planning Class Debates Gas Taxes and Other Issues
Tuesday evening was my first class of my second year of grad school. For those just tuning in, I am working on a masters degree in Urban Planning & Real Estate Development (UPRED for short) at Saint Louis University. The class, officially known as Environmental Planning and Risk Analysis, is going to be interesting. The instructor, Dr. Sarah Coffin, indicated we will all be nudged out of our comfort zones during the class. And yes, she is skilled at pushing me out of my comfort zone (in a good way).
Initial conversations got into issues throughout the world such as pollution in China, foresting in the NW, water quality in the great lakes, invasive plants in Georgia and so on. It was also brought closer to home as a couple of our assignments will focus on local environmental planning issues. Our first assignments will be readings from Aldo Leopold. Our first paper will require looking at a local environmental issue from either the perspective of Leopold, or from an opposing view.
I should clarify for readers, my fellow classmates and Dr. Coffin that, in any posts I do related to class, I will not identify personalities or classmates in these posts. In-class discussions should remain free dialog. Still, I think the subject matter and the diverse viewpoints are good for debate here. And of course, anything I’m posting here will certainly be a simplification of what was reviewed in two and a half hours in class. If you want more detail you’ll simply have to enroll! OK, with that cleared up we can move on.
Our discussion of local issues turned to air pollution and causes. This led to the car and one solution of raising gas taxes to curb use. Talk was then about what price would we actually see a shift in habits due to price. Another point was that higher fuel prices will impact those driving longer distances to reach their jobs — people living in places like Chesterfield and St. Charles County don’t have the alternate transit choices as those closer to the core. This brought us to public choice theory — that people chose to live there. However, that is where much of our jobs are located so perhaps that is the best place to live. Furthermore, not everyone wants to live in a downtown loft (or they can’t all afford said loft). Then it was suggested that not everyone can live downtown or in the city — we have a region of over 2 million people so some will live outside the urban core in suburban-ish areas. The point was made that suburban areas like Chesterfield, Creve Coeur and Dardenne Prairie are all working on town centers as evidence that even those that enjoy suburban living, and schools, do want a more urban environment than what they have but want it in their context, not in the older core. We quickly moved to road projects such as the Page Ave Extension and the rebuilding of highway forty were to accommodate those from the west trying to get downtown. It was countered that this was not the only reason 40 was being rebuilt. Bringing it home was the point that higher gas taxes would most impact the working poor that, due to lack of public transit to many places, are forced to drive to newer suburban areas for employment. Suffice to say, in under 10 minutes, we didn’t resolve the debate about gas taxes but we covered a lot of ground.
Toward the end of the semester our topics will evolve into more complex papers and eventually into each of us teaching a portion of the class on our topic.
I’m jealous, this class sounds fascinating. Please do tell if an ethanol discussion arises.
You say: “invasive plants in Georgia” what does this mean? Georgia as in former USSR or Georgia as in peach? You also excluded India, when mentioning China as a major polluter. Are they not in the discussion?
And on cars as causes of pollution…why always bring the consumer to the forefront and not the corporations? The consumer can only do so much. Why tax the family/household budget first and not the producers, factories and businesses? Regulate the corporations burning dirty coal.
Can you expand a bit on the public choice theory? I read part of the Wiki link and am still confused. I read Robert Brugemann’s ‘Sprawl’ this summer which contends – as Kunstler puts it – sprawl is find and dandy because people like it. Is that the point of public choice theory? As we all know, we have in effect legislated no alternative to sprawl through single use zoning, transportation funding mechanisims, etc. Now, if I am reading public choice theory correctly, this political reality (legislated spawl) is to be expected based on people’s preference.
If this is correct then we are pretty much screwed. Again by my reading of public choice theory, government will never make decisions based on the public good, only on public desires. No matter how much better that broccoli may be, government will always vote for more ice cream because that’s what the public wants. What are our other options? Convince people what they love is wrong? Benevolent dictator?
The best idea for a gas tax scheme I heard was one that coupled it with a citizen refund. Basically, there is a revenue neutral tax increase on gasoline. The revenue from the increase in taxes is divided up and returned equally to all citizens. This provides an incentive for people not to drive while not disadvantaging poorer classes.
It also takes money from those driving through the St. Louis area (polluting our air) and puts the money right in our pockets.
Also, think of the incentive it puts on urban living. If the refund is at all substantial than there would be an economic “rent-seeking” incentive to take advantage of the monetary transfer by moving in more urban environments.
The invasive plant species overtaking Atlanta is called Kudzu. As you drive down stretches of 400 in Atlanta you can see entire football field size areas of trees overtaken by the plant. All thats left are the tall trunks covered in green ivy. It grows insanely fast and is hard to kill. Its quite a troublesome plant for many in Atlanta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu
-Brent
When it comes to gas taxes, the debate cannot be about “curbing use” until a fair and equitable tax for the expenses to maintain our roads, highways and other transportation needs is implemented In MO, we pay just $0.17/gallon (last raised in 1992) and these fuel taxes only provide for only 23% of transportation funding (federal funds are the highest contributor at 36%). As a nation, we pay an average of just $0.47/gallon in fuel taxes compared to $1 in Canada, $1.91 in Japan and $4.54 in Britain. We should be taxing unhealthy activity (autocentrism) and not productive activities such as creating income and wealth. To curb use, taxes would have to be much higher and this would be wise. Even conservative Alan Greenspan has recommended that federal taxes be at least $1/gallon as it is a national security issue.
To make our roads safer (auto crashes kill more people than terrorists) and to reduce pollution, driving tests should be made much tougher and truck traffic should be significantly reduced through more stringent regulation. Our priorities, especially subsidizing auto/truck usage, are so lopsided that we now have an extremely difficult adjustment period ahead. The question will be do we solve it voluntarily or will market dynamics (which we cannot control as well) dictate our response. In the last 30 years we have done little to address these self-destructive tendencies and now we are producing food to feed our cars… this is immoral.
a statement I read off another blog I agree with was that a gas tax
actually functions as a tax is supposed to. Assuming the money is
designated for highway maintenance/construction, the more you use the resource (drive longer distances) the more gas you have to buy (and get taxed) so the folks putting the greatest burden or maintenance/construction shoulder the burden of that cost. Also the bigger the vehicle and the faster you drive also dictate how much gas needs to be purchased. Engines going 75 mph are not as efficient as 55 mph as small vehicles are more efficient than large ones. Also the bigger vehicle (SUV or 18 wheeler on a highway) driving fast is putting more wear and tear on the road. I think we all knew this but I’m just restating it. If a mini-cooper’s, which may never go over 40 mph, owner pays the same for road maintence that a 60 mph+ highway driving hummer owner does, that is unfair. The gas tax rectifies that situation. I don’t think I’m telling people they can’t live some place, whether to drive or what to drive I’m just telling them to pay for it.
Public Choice Theorey I suspect in laymens terms translates to “I want privacy and don’t want to be with in walking distance of poverty.”
How about the regressive nature of gasoline (sales) taxes?
The poor can least afford them, yet pay the same rate. It is like a flat tax, with no minimum income to trigger the tax. Many people’s employment, effectively, is incumbent on them having a car.
I am not exactly in favor of non-gas buyers getting money because others bought gas.
The gas tax is meant to be a consumption tax and a distant user tax, yet few consumers rationalize and understand the purpose of the tax, thereby making it a poor consumption tax and a poor user tax.
When was the last time you heard someone complain about the tax they paid when filling up with a tank of gas? Do most people even look at the receipt and understand how much they paid in tax to fill up their car? The answer is no. Even fewer equate the taxation of gasoline with their increased usage of the roads.
Oh sure they may complain about the price of gas and generally relate it back to some general notion that the gas tax made the price higher and that by driving more they consume more gas and pay more gas taxes, but few people actually link the tax with the consumption of gasoline or the use of the roads. Its low profile is what makes it such a poor consumption tax or user tax.
The opposite is of course true of the property tax. Each year you get a bill saying you have to pay X amount because you own property. The relationship between the owning of property and the resulting taxation is clear and as a result the property tax is a high visibility tax and something that all property owners consider (or should consider) when purchasing a house.
So where does all this lead me? Given the inelastic demand for gasoline in the US, a consumption tax/ user tax on gas makes zero sense as a method to penalize those who drive the most and consume the most gasoline. The gas tax is a great revenue generating device, so it clearly has its uses (just like most sales taxes), but for those wishing to have people rationalize the “true cost” of driving and curb the consumption of gasoline, it is better to look for a more high-profile method of taxation and fees, such as toll roads or annual vehicle miles traveled assessments.
what the heck, I’ll be abrasive.
Thor, I think you sell the general public’s rational abilities short or at least seem too worried with penalizing the dumb consumers rather than rewarding the smart ones. No I haven’t heard people complain about the taxes in their gasoline bills but I have heard people brag of only spending $80 month by their choice of vehicle and commute distance. I wonder what Steve pays in gas for his 50cc? motor skooter? SUV’s were built for slower speeds over unpaved ground yet the majority of the US buys them for driving high speeds on paved ground. The assumption is they’re safe because they’re big but ironically they rollover much easier than a passenger car. The German engineers must have been laughing making Porsche and BMW SUV’s… all the way to the bank. As you can tell I’m not a fan of these behemoths on the highway and know that most likely, other places with high gas taxes probably don’t have this situation. With the idea of more tollbooths… I think few will agree with you that when driving through tollboothland New Jersey people say, “yeah they got it right.”
As a current resident of New Jersey, I will say they got it right, in so much as the Turnpike and Parkway (more so the Turnpike than the Parkway, though the GSP is improving now that both are operated by the Turnpike Authority) are high quality roads with revenue streams that allow them to make the necessary infrastructure improvements to implement new technologies and increase capacity. Driving on highways in most other states, including Missouri this is not true. Look no further than the condition of the highways in the St. Louis region. You may complain about tolls, but that is simply because there is a clear nexus between user fee and purpose, something that cannot be said for the gas tax.
And frankly, I don’t think I am selling the general public short. If people do not understand why they are being taxed, the tax cannot/ does not have its desired effects. It really is that simple. People do not understand the purpose of the gas tax, therefore, it is a poor taxation method for anything other than raising revenue.
Do you really live in Jersey or are you pulling my leg?
Man you guys have had some crazy stories like Corzine’s accident and McGreevey’s resignation but that’s all off subject.
Typing to you live from New Jersey.
And yeah, there is some crazy stuff in New Jersey.