[Carfreeliving] Re: Carfreeliving Digest, Vol 2, Issue 8

[Shannon Dodge]

Sounds like a good idea. However, re: your question below whether property
taxes track well with inflation - No, they don't. Since under Prop 13
property is only reassessed upon sale, anything tied to actualy property
taxes would disproportionately impact those who own or rent property that
was purchased more recently.

It's difficult to get the 2/3 voter approval needed for any increase in
property taxes, though, especially without a piece that looks like a
direct, obvious carrot for those voters who aren't transit users, and
following on the heels of passing Prop K last year.
 
FYI, for the Prop. A affordable housing bond campaign last year, we raised
and spent somewhere around $400,000, yet missed the 66.7% threshold by a
few points. 

Has any polling been done yet?

Shannon

--- Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org wrote:
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:47:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Emily Drennen <bicyclesf at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Carfreeliving] Idea for a Transit First Transportation Tax
> To: Carfreeliving <carfreeliving at livablecity.org>
> Message-ID: <20050302074724.7231.qmail at web20223.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear all,
>
> In response to the current budget crisis for the MTA, I've been kicking
> around an idea for a new funding source, which I have dubbed the
> "Transit-First Transportation Tax" (TFTT). It would be levied as a
> percentage of each residential and commercial property owners' tax bills
> (renters would probably need to kick in to some degree as well as a
> pass-through), and would go to fund MUNI, bikes, peds, disabled access,
> street resurfacing, and some car-related projects as well (such as
> signals, signs, and street paint). The "sell" is that it is in
> everybody's best interest (both businesses and residents) to have a
> strong and affordable MUNI system. Relatively small increases in their
> tax bills could have a big impact on MUNI especially by lowering fares
> and increasing ridership. 
> 
>  
> 
> I have included below a very *drafty* outline of ideas, questions, and
> concerns for the TFTT. Please let me know if you think this idea is
> worth pursuing further, and any other thoughts. If it sounds plausible,
> I'll bring it to more folks, with the aim of getting a Supe to take it
> on. This could also be a great project for TLC and/or SPUR. (BTW, if
> this sounds plausible, I'd very much like to continue to work on it. Any
> funding out there anywhere?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Emily Drennen
> 
>  
> 
>
*******************************************************************************************************
> 
> Transit-First Transportation Tax (TFTT)
> Emily Drennen     FEBRUARY 2005 SUMMARY
> The Transit-First Transportation Tax (TFTT) would be a new tax levied on
> all residential and commercial properties (as a certain percentage of
> each property’s annual tax bill) and would fund transit-first
> transportation projects (such as MUNI, traffic calming, bikes, peds,
> paratransit, and street resurfacing, etc.). 
> 
>  
> Problem Statement
>    Chronic shortage of funding for transit-first transportation
> projects, such as for MUNI, pedestrians, bicyclists, paratransit riders,
> etc. 
> 
>    Declining federal and state funds for transportation projects
> 
>    Increased demand for municipal services, and long-term municipal
> budget crises
> 
>    Scattershot transportation project planning and implementation, based
> on the possibility of outside funding
> 
>    Continuing budget deficits at MUNI, with no major new funding sources
> identified (with a high probability of higher MUNI fares and increased
> service cuts)
> 
>    Planners and engineers spending too much of their time seeking
> external government grants when they could be doing much-needed planning
> and engineering work
> 
>    Need for more high-level transportation and land use planning that is
> multimodal, county/corridor/neighborhood-wide, and that takes advantage
> of economies of scale and opportunity 
> 
>    Annual budget process that is highly political, volatile, short-term,
> which means that transportation budgets are necessarily short-term and
> uncertain for future years
> 
>    Massive infrastructure needs, such as curb ramp installation/repair
> and street resurfacing/rebuilding, that can barely be addressed through
> current funding mechanisms. Not taking care of these capital needs
> leaves the City vulnerable to much higher costs in the future, such as
> through an ADA lawsuit or skyrocketing costs from deferred maintenance
> 
>    Inadequate enforcement of traffic laws, leading to needless injuries
> and deaths from reckless driving
> 
>    Expensive major capital projects in the near future (such as the
> Central Subway, new BRT service on Geary and Van Ness, and the
> completion of the 3rd Street Light Rail) without any new major new
> sources of funding identified
> 
>    An annual tax is the most efficient way to provide consistently
> provided services (bond issues are episodic and are expensive; TIDF-like
> fees are only assessed when development occurs (very dependent on
> economy and not very $-producing))
> 
> Outline of ttft
> w        TFTT would fund: 
> 
> o       MUNI (capital costs, personnel, planning, etc. to keep fares
> low, service frequent, improve reliability and convenience); 
> 
> o       pedestrian improvements (curb ramp backlog, countdown ped
> signals, and other projects as identified in the Ped Master Plan); 
> 
> o       bike improvements (based on approved projects and priorities as
> identified in the Bike Master Plan); 
> 
> o       traffic calming; 
> 
> o       ADA access; 
> 
> o       Integrated Transportation Management Systems (such as Transit
> Preferential Signals, Next Bus, and SFgo); 
> 
> o       traffic enforcement (SFPD increased traffic enforcement with
> goal of increased compliance with traffic laws and reduced injuries and
> deaths); 
> 
> o       parking enforcement (increases in DPT staffing for parking
> infractions); 
> 
> o       public transportation infrastructure (sidewalks, streets,
> signals, signs, etc); 
> 
> o       county-wide planning efforts (SFCTA modeling, Better
> Neighborhoods, etc.); 
> 
> o       paratransit service; 
> 
> o       school area access and safety
> 
> w        TFTT collected by Tax Collector as part of existing property
> tax collections
> 
> w        Renters would split the TFTT bill with the landlord of their
> residence or business (what %?)
> 
> w        Proceeds of TFTT would be managed by the SFCTA through a
> process similar to the Prop K ½ cent sales tax
> 
>  
> BENEFITS
> w        Benefits of a dedicated and sufficient funding stream:
> 
> o       Rational and logical project development and implementation
> 
> o       Better citywide, neighborhood, and corridor planning
> 
> o       Better multimodal coordination
> 
> o       More matching money available for outside funding sources
> 
=== message truncated ===


=====