Cities Charging for all the Wrong Things
It’s not surprising to learn that cities across the country are responding to recession-induced revenue shortfalls by raising all kinds of fees. It is, however, disappointing to see which fees are being raised. Economists have long argued that certain kinds of fees, such as congestion charges for accessing crowded roads at peak hours, or higher parking rates in scarce-parking areas, could do a lot to improve life in many American cities, towns, and suburbs. But status quo bias and political reluctance to embrace revenue-raisers has lager deterred politicians from seeking such fees. A dramatic financial crunch that makes painful measures absolutely necessary would seem to be the ideal time to impose some fees that, though people are initially skeptical, would ultimately prove broadly beneficial. Instead we’re getting stuff like this:
After her sport utility vehicle sideswiped a van in early February, Shirley Kimel was amazed at how quickly a handful of police officers and firefighters in Winter Haven, Fla., showed up. But a real shock came a week later, when a letter arrived from the city billing her $316 for the cost of responding to the accident.
It just doesn’t make sense to be looking to this sort of thing in the first instance when so many more appealing possible sources of revenue are still on the table.
41 Responses to “Cities Charging for all the Wrong Things”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I’m actually somewhat surprised Matt isn’t in favor of making people who bumble around in SUVs pay for the emergency services resulting from the accidents they cause.
I don’t feel that the driver of the SUV in this story should have been charged monetarily, because the reading public hearing about this story has been more than well-compensated in schadenfreude.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Charging people who are found to be at fault for the emergency response services seems like a great idea. I really don’t see what is so wrong with this that Matthew is up in arms about it. Its not like they are proposing to charge people who have a heart attack and call 911, no they are charging a moronic lady in an oversized SUV who side-swipped a van.
Don’t like the fees? Then don’t cause a crash! Pretty f-in simple.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Do you really want to discourage people from using emergency services in an emergency?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jimboslice -
If there was a fairly substantial fine involved, who would tell the police the truth about an auto accident? I think the money savings would be lost in extra investigations for hit and run accidents.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
They’re called public services for a reason. I wouldn’t mind some sort of fine for people who through negligence end up using way, way more than their fair share, but that should be decided by a judge on a case by case basis.
Aside from that, if revenue is short, man up and raise fucking taxes. This is really just cowardice on the part of politicians and administrators (and the voting public).
April 11th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Well presumably it cost money to fix the van that she hit, and she (or her insurance company) had to pay up to fix that car. I would also wager a guess that the repair bills were substantially greater than $365 – so if anything would push her towards a running away it would be paying for the damage she caused.
Also, it can’t really be called a “fine” since it is not punitive in nature. It is really just billing for services rendered. The city spent $x responding to her crash, so she got a bill for $x from the city. Seems fair to me.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Winter Haven sounds like the ultimate old people town: crawling with cops (hence the quick multi-officer response to a fender-bender), but allergic to the taxes you would normally have to pay to keep the force at that level.
It would have been interesting to know if Ms Kimel was from out of town, though I guess gouging non-voters would hardly be unique to Winter Haven.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I’m sure someone who actually lives in Florida will weigh in here, but I understand that Florida’s got some pretty tough structural impediments to raising revenue for public services.
There’s no state income tax, and it’s enshrined in the constitution.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I think we can add “basic politics” to the list of things Matt doesn’t get. This kind of user fee is akin to the huge taxes hotels asses for occupancy. In the abstract, they are punitive. In reality, they are assessed to people who don’t live in the area, and, in the case of business travelers, to people who don’t even pay them directly. Unless they get really steep, it’s without political consequence.
Which is what this fee is – without political consequence. There are a handful of people who get into accidents relative to the general population (thus, they create no voting bloc). Now let’s consider Matt’s pet idea, charging for parking or congestion. Suddenly you impact everyone in the local area, including tons of people who can now be easily awakened into a “vote the bums out” bloc by a moderately savvy politician.
Given that, which kind of user fee do you think the local govt will assess first? The one that is politically painless, or the one that causes lots of talk radio chatter, newspaper headlines, and blog posts?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think we can add “basic politics” to the list of things Matt doesn’t get.
The political difficulties involved are not the main issue, and are even explicitly acknowledged in Matt’s post, you numbnuts. At issue here is what’s the best policy.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
jh – Matt sounds confused as to why his “best policies” don’t get enacted. The fact that his “best policies” would be wildly unpopular in most places seems to confuse him. Thus, my comment.
Oh, and your reaction would be better received if you were capable of making it without name calling. Since that seems to be endemic to the commenters here though, I won’t hold my breath waiting…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Economists have long argued that certain kinds of fees, such as congestion charges for accessing crowded roads at peak hours, or higher parking rates in scarce-parking areas, could do a lot to improve life in many American cities, towns, and suburbs.
Economists have long argued that reducing or eliminating taxpayer subsidies for inefficient industries–such as mass transit–would do a lot to improve life in many American cities, towns and suburbs.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
James Robertson: “Matt sounds confused as to why his “best policies” don’t get enacted.”
Matt: “But status quo bias and political reluctance to embrace revenue-raisers has lager [sic] deterred politicians from seeking such fees.”
Clear that up for you?
Oh, and your reaction would be better received if you were capable of making it without name calling.
Don’t really give a shit about any of that. It’s a blog thread on a Saturday, not a conference at the Brookings Institution.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Don’t really give a shit about any of that. It’s a blog thread on a Saturday, not a conference at the Brookings Institution.
Okay, shitface.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I really hope no one in Baltimore learns about this revenue generation technique. Not only would I have to pay a fee in the event of causing an accident (actually I’m in favor of this generally), but my insurance rates would spike in due time because there would actually be an incentive for police responding to minor accidents to write up tickets. At the moment, my wallet is quite thankful that a majority of fender benders and break-ins go unreported in this city.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Economists have long argued that certain kinds of fees, such as congestion charges for accessing crowded roads at peak hours, or higher parking rates in scarce-parking areas, could do a lot to improve life in many American cities, towns, and suburbs….A dramatic financial crunch that makes painful measures absolutely necessary would seem to be the ideal time to impose some fees that, though people are initially skeptical, would ultimately prove broadly beneficial.
This would be all well and good if cities were currently making draconian cuts in public transit services (witness Boston). This sort of double whammy would be an incredibly regressive form of taxation at a time when our country’s poorest are already trying the hardest to hang on to disappearing jobs. Nice proposal Matt.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
JimboSlice says:
“they are charging a moronic lady in an oversized SUV who side-swipped a van.”
Is it at all clear that she’s a moron? If yes, is it because she drives an SUV? Christ.
Just for the record, I read the article. I did not see any mention of the vehicle she was driving. Was it an Escalade? An Armada? Maybe. But it just as easily could have been a Subaru Forester. Here’s a website:
http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/forester/index.html
Looks about as big as the Ford Focus wagon I used to drive. As I recall, it was quite a bit smaller than a Panzer. And while I might well be a moron, my decision to drive a mid-sized car hardly seems like the determining factor.
Sure, she sideswiped someone. That was bad. But she was insured, and will repair the damage.
What gives?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, I’m at a loss to understand why it’s so terrible that someone who causes an accident be charged for the cost of responding to that accident. It’s certainly better than Yglesias’ clever plan to tax everybody who has the gall to drive a car on the highway.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
It’s certainly better than Yglesias’ clever plan to tax everybody who has the gall to drive a car on the highway.
There’s nothing wrong with charging highway users the cost of providing the highways they use. Matt’s problem is that he ignores that principle when it comes to mass transit. He wants drivers and others to massively subsidize mass transit users.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Winter Haven sounds like the ultimate old people town: crawling with cops (hence the quick multi-officer response to a fender-bender), but allergic to the taxes you would normally have to pay to keep the force at that level.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Charging to respond to an accident creates a disincentive to report an accident. I.e. rather than discouraging people from having accidents, this will create an incentive to “hit and run”.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Charles, we do charge transit riders. It’s called the fare. It only covers part of the cost. Nor does Matt want to impose a congestion charge on each street which fully covers the cost of building and maintaining that street (how much would it cost to drive on your cul-de-sac which consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of land).
The reality is that you can’t have transportation systems without cross-subsidies. If you accept cross-subsidies from one street to another, you have no principled objection to cross-subsidies from roads to transit.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Charles, we do charge transit riders. It’s called the fare. It only covers part of the cost.
That’s the problem. Transit fares cover only around 27% of the costs of providing transit services. Transit users should pay a much larger share of those costs.
The reality is that you can’t have transportation systems without cross-subsidies.
Whether or not that dubious claim is true, it is irrelevant. You can certainly have transportation systems for which users pay a much larger share of the costs than 27%.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
We can’t put toll booths at the end of every street. It’s not practical. But we can obnviously charge higher fares for transit. Your “no principled objection” ignores fundamental realities.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Sam M says:
Well I am assuming you didn’t look into the accident more before commenting. I did, and found a TV news report (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/investigates/paying_for_police_022309) which describes the accident more in depth. She went through a red light and hit another car. In my book that makes her a moron.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with James Robertson, and almost nobody else on this thread.
And if you happen to be at fault and are the only possible person to call for emergency services, and yet your health or property is at serious risk, then the cost shouldn’t be enough of a disincentive to make a difference.
Transit fares cover only around 27% of the costs of providing transit services. Transit users should pay a much larger share of those costs.
It must be nice to live in a world without poor people. What’s it like? Are the streets cleaner?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
It must be nice to live in a world without poor people.
The issue is transit subsidies, not poor people. What’s it like being illiterate?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
People who get from A to B without using cars are benefitting those who make the same route in cars by decreasing the congestion on roadways and parkings.
The effects are non-linear. Removing 10% of vehicles from highways during rush hour can half the commuting time for the remaining drivers in some conditions. In the same time, the commuters who use mass transit will also use more time rather than less. Corollary: subsidizing mass transit may benefit all commuters.
Sometime mass transit does strange stuff and on some routes the money are clearly wasted. But imperfection affect all areas of human endavour.
About the main topic: I support Matt. Creating tens of different piddling sources of revenue requires enforcement, rate setting (why not 10,000 dollars for responding to emergency?), deliberations of assorted public bodies that could do other useful work etc. As far as dis-incentives for causing accidents are concerned, they are definitely in place already.
Another aspect is that the guilt in accidents is determined quite unreliably, and the municipality, being responsible for the condition of the road, can well be one of the contributing parties.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
….well thats interesting. I live in Winter Haven.
I shall make note not to sideswipe anyone.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
People who get from A to B without using cars are benefitting those who make the same route in cars by decreasing the congestion on roadways and parkings.
Your claim with respect to congestion is true only in cases where the transit user would otherwise travel by car and the route would be congested. What share of total transit trips do such cases comprise? What is the monetary value of the congestion-relief benefit of transit in total?
April 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Jimbo,
I watched the tape, too. I am a bit hesitant to say that anyone who screws up on the road is a “moron.” But you could make the case, I suppose.
Still, I see nothing in any of the reports indicating that her SUV was “oversized,” or that the size of the vehicle led ot the accident in any way, One presumes that people who run redlights in Priuses, even bicycles, cause accidents.
Some problems in the world might stem from the existence of Hummers. But not all problems.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Still boring us with the same old bullshit, “charles”?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I also see nothing in any of my posts that indicates her vehicle size had anything to do with the accident. What is your point, or are you just misreading my comments?
April 12th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Whether this woman was right or not doesn’t prove whether the law itself is right or not. Increasing the financial disincentives towards reporting an accident seems like a bad idea. As I believe someone says in the article, “Don’t I pay taxes for a reason?” Making use of public services punitive is a bad way to run your public services.
There are some other fees in that article that don’t seem like a bad idea, such as fining people who leave their cars running while waiting for their kids at school. It’s a pollution risk, and, as we saw in Chinatown a couple of weeks ago, a potential danger if the car gets rolling without a driver and kills someone. Enforcing the idling laws already on the books seems to not be a bad idea. Using these laws as a way to make money is dubious, but enforcing laws that are good for society (like congestion pricing, as well) while also making money off it it strikes me as a no brainer.
April 12th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The best way to relieve congestion would be to reduce the number of commuters in the first place by providing incentives and disincentives to businesses with regard to telecommuting. Tons of people now trek into offices everyday when the work could easily be accomplished from home. As many have pointed out, it only takes a small reduction in the number of commuters to make a large impact on congestion and the environment. How about a small daily tax on the number of people that show up at offices in the center city? Businesses with more than 100 employees have to pay it. Then, finally, some of these dinosaur managers will realize that it is better to have people actually doing work rather than attending meetings.
April 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Brilliant idea zyxw!!! I am sure cities all across America will be jumping onto your plan of a tax whose express purpose is to reduce the number of jobs within the city.
Also I am sure that the switch will involves local business simply switch over from local employees working at the office to the same local employees working via telecommuting. There is no possibility that this would shift work to foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially less compensation and who can get the job done via telecommuting. No possible way that this will result in mass layoffs for American workers.
April 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
This is a pretty bold claim given the way these things are intended to be used. I don’t see how taxing these things to fill existing gaps in the budget improves anyone’s life.
It would be one thing to use the new funds to reform the transportation system in a more holistic way. But most American cities are designed around cars and sprawl. Retaining that structure while also fining people for using it is not going to “improve life” for most anyone.