Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing was certain if Democrat Jason Carter was elected governor last fall: There was zero chance he would ever get a Republican-dominated General Assembly to approve a tax increase. This was a comforting thought to fiscal conservatives when Carter was polling well in 2014.
Gov. Nathan Deal’s re-election was also no reason for concern, because any proposal to raise taxes would be dead on arrival. After all, Gov. Deal, like most Republican leaders, had taken the “no new taxes” pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. Georgia citizens were finally due a tax cut — state revenues were up, and the last tax cut was under Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes 16 years ago — and they certainly didn’t need to fear a tax increase.
Or so we thought.
Since the Republican sweep in November, one trial balloon after another has been floated by Republican leaders suggesting Georgia’s “transportation crisis” is so dire, raising new revenues cannot be avoided. These Republicans point to the recent study committee report as justification for their flip-flop on new taxes — but nothing in the report justifies new taxes.
Georgia’s transportation issues do not amount to a crisis, and they certainly aren’t new. Metro Atlanta has had traffic jams for decades. So does every large city. The notion money can cure the “problem” of bad traffic is absurd. As long as most schools and businesses keep standard hours, rush hours will exist. Building more or wider roads does little to decrease traffic jams. They simply fill up with traffic again.
Public transportation also isn’t a miracle cure. A bus with three or four people in it (like most that I see) actually harms traffic flow. We all know the pain of being caught behind a bus that stops, causing a mini traffic jam each time. Trains are so limited in their route system that they are only useful for a small percentage of citizens, and then only for some of their trips. In my experience, the worst traffic in America is in and around New York City, the American city with the most extensive public transportation system.
Atlanta traffic also hasn’t gotten markedly worse in recent years. Spaghetti Junction, Ga. 400, I-75 in Cobb and Henry counties, and many other corridors have all been horrible since the 1990s. The new “transportation crisis” is a fiction. Our transport system is fully on par with other states.
Even so, if our legislators are bound and determined to spend more money on transportation, fiscal conservatives have no opposition, as long as such funding is taken from other spending.
There’s plenty of fat in the Georgia budget that can be spent on transportation. For example, the governor proposes to spend $9.5 million on a new center for the Future Farmers of America and $6.7 million for a new GBI morgue. As long as such boondoggles are being proposed, new revenue isn’t needed.
To be clear, fiscal conservatives do not oppose tax reform. Lowering taxes or shifting revenue streams is warranted. The priority should be reducing Georgia’s income tax. Georgia simply cannot compete with Tennessee and Florida, which have no income tax. Why would a small business locate in Georgia when the owner and employees will have to work 6 percent harder to make the same amount? The income tax should be reduced from 6 percent to 5 percent, and all income below $50,000 should be exempt.
Some of the lost revenue can be recouped through a combination of higher gas and cigarette taxes and closing special-interest loopholes. But most of the drop in revenue should be covered by simply limiting the rate of spending increases. Fiscal conservatives know spending increases should be tied not to increases in tax receipts, but to the rate of inflation and population growth. Thirty states have adopted such limits on spending, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Georgia, too, should adopt this wise practice.
If Georgia Republicans cannot be trusted when they have total control of the purse strings, perhaps divided government is the only solution. Spending has been relatively constrained during periods of divided government in Washington, such as the Clinton years when Newt Gingrich was House speaker. On the other hand, from 2003 to 2007, when George W. Bush was in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors. Of course, in 2006 they suffered a dramatic defeat at the polls, and both houses were retaken by the Democrats.
Georgia’s Republicans will suffer the same fate if they raise taxes. New taxes would never have been possible under a Carter governorship, and Republicans should not make the voters who supported them regret their vote. Gov. Deal has not said he supports tax increases. Disturbingly, however, he has not slammed the door on the notion. I hope on May 1 fiscal conservatives aren’t dreaming of what might have been under a Carter governorship.
Adam Webb is an attorney who lives in Atlanta.
I don't agree with every argument made, but there are a lot of good points here.
I'm sorry, but that hurt my head in so many ways....
If he thinks there is enough fat to make up for $10s of billion in under-investment in transportation over a couple decades and he can only point out two projects worth less than $10 million/each and both have productive purposes, then he is severely in need of a better argument to make this overall point. He also fails to address how much funding has been taken out of our upper education system and the long-term repercussions of those decisions in this talk of simply.... shifting money around. He also fails to discuss the past reductions in the gas tax. He also continues to pitch for a reduction in the only progressive tax there is to make up for the regressive taxes the state has. (overall taxation in Georgia is regressive, not progressive... so he is essentially arguing for a tax break for richer individuals and an added burden on the poor and middle class, whether he is smart enough to know it or not)
Largely though, his op-ed is categorically incorrect and is a large unsubstantiated assumption about transportation. Our region's transportation system was largely designed for a population over 3 million. We had major cut backs starting in the early 90s. Our region is going to continue to grow towards 8 million by 2040. More people, more businesses will need more transportation links one way or another to bring more people together. It isn't about always keeping roadways congestion free. This mantra of it will be congested either way, so we should give up doesn't make sense. It is still about overall numbers the transportation system can move people effectively, regardless of how they are moved.
If Republicans magically learn to supposedly "spend like drunken sailors" primarily on education and transportation at the state level, I will have a new-found respect for them. Because through the 90s and the 2000s, it was Republicans lowering those budgets. Republicans have already had total control for some time now.
Truth is, their pour decisions of the past are catching up with them and they are being forced to see the problems. The problem with transportation spending is it's expensive if it all happens at once, but it isn't if its spread out over decades. The immediate ill effects are not always seen immediately, but are seen when the region has a few million more people and at that point it is more expensive to implement.
I don't buy that the extra $1B+ a year in tax dollars the transportation consultants (that will also be in line to receive most of these projects) say we need to spend is really a "need". Life will go on and Atlanta will continue to thrive without that spending. The only change will be that people will (continue) to move closer to work.
I don't buy that the extra $1B+ a year in tax dollars the transportation consultants (that will also be in line to receive most of these projects) say we need to spend is really a "need". Life will go on and Atlanta will continue to thrive without that spending. The only change will be that people will (continue) to move closer to work.
Except that comes with a harsh lifestyle costs and will increase expenses for those needing to develop new spaces, so it will curb quality growth... especially from companies that might be in New Jersey looking to cut expenses.
There is a relationship between access and cost of development.
The other harsh problem, which I have brought up to your repeatedly... always will come down to where 3 million additional people can feasibly go. Atlanta proper still has poor zoning and hard historical boundaries in key places, to grow beyond a certain level.
So the compilation of harsh realities of how far that can go... simply can't happen.
The ARC has actually done a great job compiling regional planning and costs of future improvements based on that really well. They focus on core development as much as possible, core development in existing suburbs, and outward growth as needed. What is impressive is they continually are being honest about what is possible given local zoning, historical boundaries, and cost of development.
The other flaw to your argument is our region will eventually become more unattractive to new employers if they can only reliably hire people that live within 5 miles of work (ie after the year 2040 with no improvements). This means when an employers looks at their employee shed, it will be artificially smaller and less appealing since they can't tap all of the talent in the region at once. They could only expect to tap talent in a smaller area.
These punish the suburbanites and stick to them for your own personal (perceived-gain) in urban core building will really just shoot our region in the foot in the long-run, especially when most our region's current build won't go away. In other words... we will build housing for 3 million people more, but most of our existing stock will stay where it is. We have to plan with our existing infrastructure (private property included) in mind.
The solution to traffic (and highway funding) is HOT lanes.
But besides that, your only way to avoid traffic is to not drive.
But planning off this assumption alone at this point is bordering on being completely delusional and rose-colored with how you think the world should work... not how it actually works.
We're trying to make for a prosperous region of over 8 million by 2040. Planning must move forward and it must be multifaceted and it can not ignore our existing infrastructure.
I can tell just from 2012 that traffic is getting worse. Might still count it all as terrible but definitely has gotten worse. I could leave work in 2012 and never worry about traffic on 400SB north of 285. Now, sometimes it's worse than NB. Even NB in the morning has gotten bad. Last summer I could drive past PC without a problem. 70 all the way up to Northridge. Then I started noticing it was getting a little harrier but fine after PC. Well now it's starting to slow down from 285 (and that awful ramp) and beyond the Marta station. Just this morning I couldn't get above 60 all the way to Northridge. And this was at 7 am. Not exactly peak time.
There are many cities out there with populations well over 10 million that don't spend a fraction of what Atlanta does on highways. Many don't have any highways in there core.
There is a system out there to determine how much we should spend on transportation: the free market. Let users pay for what they want. I have no problem with whatever lifestyle people want to live. As I have said before, I am glad those in Atlanta have the choice of a suburban lifestyle and think they should continue to have that choice. I just think if they should be picking up the full cost of the roads they are using. Nor should a suburbanite have to pay for a transit system they don't use.
Transportation (and so many other things) have been massively underfunded for years. Despite recent trends (which may be more blips than trends, and remember, the suburbs are much larger and are still growing), it will take many decades, if not a century, for a significant enough number of people to move in town - if they even work in town - to eliminate the need for both transit AND road expansion.
Incidentally, despite the fact that I'm pleased to see MARTA's improvements, those improvements can't solve the whole problem ITP, either. The road system inside the city also needs to catch up with the increasing density. The worst traffic I usually encounter is not on I-75, I-285, Cobb Parkway or Atlanta Road. It's in town, on Howell Mill, Marietta St., Peachtree, 10th, 14th... on weekends, no less. I'm very glad I don't work in the central city and don't have to fight it on a daily basis. My 285/Atlanta Road commute is, by comparison, a breeze. I used to occasionally go up Marietta St. and Howell Mill towards Smyrna if 285 NB was messed up in the evenings, but that has gotten MUCH worse in recent years and is typically now much slower and more frustrating.
If you think 3-4 million people are going to move from the suburbs into the city in the next 20-30 years, well:
a) I don't think that will be possible, because people will need to be able to sell their suburban homes in order to buy something in the city, and if the demand isn't there (because supposedly everyone wants to move into the city), they won't be able to sell them.
b) ITP would, in my own personal opinion, based on the type of life I value, become a really dreadful place to live. Hopefully I'll be retired and running a vineyard in the South of France by then
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
