No bus (Colorado Springs: buying, college, subsidized)

[Bullitt007]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I can understand not wanting to pay higher taxes but to say we should not provide bus service to people who can't afford a car and tell them they have to walk or bike just does not seem right to me. I know many people who can't afford a car and they are not freeloaders they are just doing the best they can on the budget they have, why make it more difficult for them?

That theory only goes so far.

Why make it difficult for me, the taxpayer, to pay for John Doe, when I can barely afford to get by myself? I budget down to the dime, every month, and simply don't have the money for more taxes to go to someone else.

What gives you the right to say that John Doe deserves my taxes for him to get to work?

Oh wait, take from those that are barely getting by, thus creating more poverty and more need for welfare, busing, etc. Oh, I see how it works now...

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Bullitt007

That theory only goes so far.

Why make it difficult for me, the taxpayer, to pay for John Doe, when I can barely afford to get by myself? I budget down to the dime, every month, and simply don't have the money for more taxes to go to someone else.

What gives you the right to say that John Doe deserves my taxes for him to get to work?

Oh wait, take from those that are barely getting by, thus creating more poverty and more need for welfare, busing, etc. Oh, I see how it works now...

I understand its difficult now for everyone but it seems to me that transportation should be one of the last items to be cut back. I mean if people can't get to work and lose their job then go on welfare how does that help the economy? It seems to me we should want a way for people to get to work that way they can be productive members of society.

[CTownNative]

You know I take the bus to get around, i can't drive yet i have to wait 1 month till im 18 to get my licence. And im not a good driver so that would be a hard thing for me. People have the right to not want to pay higher taxes, if thats what they choose for their city. And while I do think Colorado Springs is nice right now, I do have the right to think it will get worse when public service is cut and chopped. People aren't going to want to live here. So it only hurts this city in the long run.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I understand its difficult now for everyone but it seems to me that transportation should be one of the last items to be cut back. I mean if people can't get to work and lose their job then go on welfare how does that help the economy? It seems to me we should want a way for people to get to work that way they can be productive members of society.

The simple answer is that the people that want this service need to be willing to pay what it costs to operate it, or face losing it. The first increment in that dose of truth is already playing out.

During the boom years the city council spent money with the assumption that exponential growth in tax revenue would continue indefinitely. When reality reared it's ugly head, the city council then tried to force more of that budget growth absent growth in the tax base and had their little pink a**es handed to them by the voters. Now it's time to reduce services in line with what we can realistically afford. That $53 million slid under the table to the USOC sure might come in handy here...but we don't get to do both.

Nobody has a right to expect others to pay for their transportation. They need to either agree to pay increased fares in line with bus service costs to keep the service they want, find alternate transportation arrangements, move closer, or find a different job.

Oil is at $82.50 a barrel, and gas prices are climbing again. The long-term effects of our irresponsible lack of budget discipline is going to make foreign-acquired commodities like oil more expensive still. Anyone banking on cheap subsidized transportation anywhere in this country might want to re-think that and their living/working arrangements. When the tax bill comes due for the $trillions handed out in bank welfare and stimulus that doesn't stimulate, and is added to the major shortfalls developing in state and local budgets, the combined tax bill for all of is isn't going to permit much at all in the way of freebies for freeloaders.

Originally Posted by CTownNative

People aren't going to want to live here. So it only hurts this city in the long run.

Well, people that depend on bus service but aren't willing to pay for it might not want to live here. And if they move away to somewhere that's willing to give them the handouts they think they so richly deserve, I say it helps our city in the long term.

[mollygee]

Why do you think public transportation is a "handout?" Colorado Springs is spread out in all directions. This is the year 2010. There should be public transportation in this town.

Have you ever stood on a corner in the cold or at night and waited for the next bus?? Have you ever had to rely on public transportation? A handout?

Someone said yesterday, about the Metro Mobility not running on week-ends, "oh, it does not bother me, I drive," Well, how closed minded can we be??

[Coloradoan]

There seems to be a lot of “I’ve got mine so screw the rest” type of thinking on this thread.

One of the most basic pubic services provided in any civilized society, is public transportation. Through no fault of their own, especially in this economy, not everyone is able to own a car or live close to their job, if they even have a job anymore. Trying to find funds to relocate outside of Colorado Springs would be almost impossible for someone that can barely cover their bus fare. The trade off of paying higher taxes for public bus service far outweighs paying the taxes to support a now unemployed person (and their family) on welfare, food stamps, healthcare, etc.

Although it might be incomprehensible to some, no matter how hard you’ve worked or how financially secure you may feel in life, everything you’ve worked for (including your health) could be lost tomorrow. Public transportation may become your lifeline. Sure, tax money in Colorado Springs has been mismanaged over the years, and I agree with some of the cutbacks. But public bus service should not be one of them.

[Postal]

Originally Posted by Coloradoan

Sure, tax money in Colorado Springs has been mismanaged over the years, and I agree with some of the cutbacks. But public bus service should not be one of them.

Here's the crux of the argument. It shouldn't be for or against public transportation. I agree with a well maintained and efficient public transportation system being offered to those who need it. I agree with a reasonable subsidization of that system. However, the city has mismanaged the budget for multiple years and now the wrong people are having to pay the price. I already give plenty of money to all layers of government with only the request that they use it wisely. Unfortunately, that request is rarely fulfilled.

For those of you who think we should just keep throwing more money at any government, please continue to do so yourself. Don't force that on anyone else. I look at the denial of tax increases as one step in the right direction to discipline/punish a fiscally wayward government body. If that is followed by the cutting of services that are widely used and appreciated, that should push citizens to make the appropriate changes in elected officials. If changes are not made, then you deserve to continue down this path.

Simply put, you are all frustrated with how the government is acting right now. It doesn't matter if it's because of cuts in bus service or continual requests for greater taxes. Both reasons are valid reasons to send the city government a message that their behavior is not acceptable. Please do so.

[tfox]

Jumping into the debate here, I think that a good case can be made for the benefits of a working public transit system. It's of benefit to all of us to have the poor, elderly, and disabled be able to get to work -- far cheaper for all of us to have a productive citizen earning a paycheck then sitting at home collecting welfare checks from the government. There's a pretty significant portion of the potential labor force that for whatever reason can't drive. Do you want those people in the labor force or not? If you do, then having at least a minimal amount of public transit is a necessity. It's also obvious that if that's the target market for transit, then it'll never make money even though it's doing good for all of us.

I've also never bought the "transit must be a profit-making entity" argument, either. The government on all levels subsidizes the private automobile as a mode of transit and never expects much revenue in return. Why should transit suddenly be expected to "pay its own way?" while competing with such a heavily subsidized competitor? Once Uncle Sam and the state sell all transportation assets to private companies who then charge market rates for their use, THEN we can start talking about private transit too.

I do think you can make a valid case that government transit agencies don't have a good track record of efficiency -- take the RTD Fastracks project as Exhibit A on that. Private-public partnerships in transportation may be a good solution to that problem. But to simply throw transit out due to buearucratic inefficiencies is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Pookie]

Perhaps some people are tired of footing the bill for automobiles:

THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY

"According to Hart and Spivak, government subsidies for highways and
parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross
national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50
per gallon. If this tax were to account for the "soft" costs such as
pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would be as
high as $9.50 per gallon. The cost of these subsidies -
approximately $5,000 per car per year - is passed directly on to the
American citizen in the form of increased prices for products or,
more often, as income, property, and sales taxes. This means that
the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not just drivers,
but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And these people
suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on for mobility
have gone out of business, unable to compete with the heavily
subsidized highways.

[gn3]

Just imagine the kicking and screaming if the "rugged individualists" didn't have their massive auto subsidy (or meat subsidy, or many others). Most of those who preach the radical libertarian line are beneficiaries of redistribution through these policies and would find life a whole lot less rosy if these ceased.