U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2014, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,242,183 times
Reputation: 11726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
A tax on parking that goes towards transportation spending. You could implement it in multiple ways. Perhaps you have a local tax on the total revenue of every parking garage operator, for example. You could also require businesses that offer parking to pay a fee for the number of spaces they make available.
But don't they already do that by paying property taxes? If the lot is on your land, then I presume you're paying taxes on it. And garage operators already pay taxes. You're going to levy an additional tax on top of the taxes they're already paying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2014, 04:07 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,875,228 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
But don't they already do that by paying property taxes? If the lot is on your land, then I presume you're paying taxes on it. And garage operators already pay taxes. You're going to levy an additional tax on top of the taxes they're already paying?
Yes--a direct tax that whose revenues will go into the pool of transportation dollars. Property taxes typically go to a local general fund of revenues that are used for general local government expenses. The operator of a parking lot is not necessarily the owner of the underlying land. Garage operators pay income taxes on their profits, sure. But they do not pay a transportation tax for each parking spot they provide, which is what I am proposing.

For street parking, spots could be metered and/or cars could be required to display stickers to park in different zones. Stickers would have a monthly cost that would go, again, to transportation funding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Yes--a direct tax that whose revenues will go into the pool of transportation dollars. Property taxes typically go to a local general fund of revenues that are used for general local government expenses. The operator of a parking lot is not necessarily the owner of the underlying land. Garage operators pay income taxes on their profits, sure. But they do not pay a transportation tax for each parking spot they provide, which is what I am proposing.

For street parking, spots could be metered and/or cars could be required to display stickers to park in different zones. Stickers would have a monthly cost that would go, again, to transportation funding.
Many cities already do indirect taxes on parking revenue, probably most, often going to transit like in SF or Portland. Sacramento's used to go in part to support the arts but now it will go so the millionaires have another new building to play basketball in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,242,183 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Yes--a direct tax that whose revenues will go into the pool of transportation dollars. Property taxes typically go to a local general fund of revenues that are used for general local government expenses.
Which includes public transportation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
The operator of a parking lot is not necessarily the owner of the underlying land.
Yes, but the owner of the land already pays taxes on it. That would be like the government sending both the property owner and his or her renters a bill for property taxes to be paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Garage operators pay income taxes on their profits, sure. But they do not pay a transportation tax for each parking spot they provide, which is what I am proposing.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. They already pay taxes on the number of spaces they provide by paying taxes on the income generated from their business. If a single car didn't park in their lot, then they'd pay no taxes. If their lot is full 24/7, then they're paying taxes. So what you're saying is that they should pay another tax in addition to the taxes they pay on the revenues created from their business?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
For street parking, spots could be metered and/or cars could be required to display stickers to park in different zones. Stickers would have a monthly cost that would go, again, to transportation funding.
Most cities already have parking meters. Parking permits aren't really needed in many cities since parking is not as much of an issue. In Atlanta, for example, my brother lived in an apartment building downtown that provided parking (for free!). There are also quite a few big cities that don't have a ton of on-street parking in residential areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 04:45 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,875,228 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Many cities already do indirect taxes on parking revenue, probably most, often going to transit like in SF or Portland. Sacramento's used to go in part to support the arts but now it will go so the millionaires have another new building to play basketball in.
SF owns many of the local parking garages. It also owns and operates street parking meters. I'm not aware of indirect taxes on parking revenue from private garages that goes to the transportation fund in SF. Yes, city government raiding transportation funds for pet projects is an unfortunately common problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 04:51 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,875,228 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Which includes public transportation...
And I'm suggesting an additional tax which is to directly fund transportation expenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Yes, but the owner of the land already pays taxes on it. That would be like the government sending both the property owner and his or her renters a bill for property taxes to be paid.
If you don't want to pay the parking space tax, then don't operate a parking garage. Real estate is subject to property taxes. Businesses that use real estate are also subject to taxes and fees. Taxes are a fact of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. They already pay taxes on the number of spaces they provide by paying taxes on the income generated from their business. If a single car didn't park in their lot, then they'd pay no taxes. If their lot is full 24/7, then they're paying taxes. So what you're saying is that they should pay another tax in addition to the taxes they pay on the revenues created from their business?
They pay income tax to federal and state authorities, which is paid on their profits, not revenues. A revenue or space-based tax would be levied by the local transportation agency and used for transportation funding. They would be paying another tax, yes. Just like a restaurant might pay 1) property taxes, 2) income taxes, 3) liquor license fees, 4) sales taxes, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Most cities already have parking meters. Parking permits aren't really needed in many cities since parking is not as much of an issue. In Atlanta, for example, my brother lived in an apartment building downtown that provided parking (for free!). There are also quite a few big cities that don't have a ton of on-street parking in residential areas.
Parking permits should not be in place because parking is an issue--they should be in place because congestion and transportation funding is an issue. If there is not much on-street parking, then permitting would not make a lot of sense, though, I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,242,183 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
And I'm suggesting an additional tax which is to directly fund transportation expenses.
I gathered that. But why not just raise taxes? It's not like the money you're going to get from taxing garage operators is going to go that far anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
If you don't want to pay the parking space tax, then don't operate a parking garage. Real estate is subject to property taxes. Businesses that use real estate are also subject to taxes and fees. Taxes are a fact of life.
I think most people have come to accept taxes as a part of life (unless your name is Al Capone or Wesley Snipes). What you're talking about, however, is something totally different. If you were Caesar, then yeah, you could probably get away with it. In reality, you'd be fighting with your city's business community over a tax they'd think was unfair (rightfully so).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 07:20 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,875,228 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I gathered that. But why not just raise taxes? It's not like the money you're going to get from taxing garage operators is going to go that far anyway.



I think most people have come to accept taxes as a part of life (unless your name is Al Capone or Wesley Snipes). What you're talking about, however, is something totally different. If you were Caesar, then yeah, you could probably get away with it. In reality, you'd be fighting with your city's business community over a tax they'd think was unfair (rightfully so).
The purpose is to connect taxes to the behavior you are seeking to deter and also to reconnect drivers to the externalities their automobiles produce (congestion and air pollution). In the case of taxing garage operators, you are seeking to deter driving and parking because those things cause congestion and air pollution. The tax attaches an additional cost to those behaviors. I think it would not be business owners, but drivers that fought the tax (the only business owners who would care are the garage owners). I recognize that it would be politically challenging, but I think it would be a good idea. We don't pay for our tailpipe emissions or our contribution to congestion. Increasing fees associated with driving will ultimately make alternative forms of transportation more attractive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 07:26 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
The purpose is to connect taxes to the behavior you are seeking to deter and also to reconnect drivers to the externalities their automobiles produce (congestion and air pollution). In the case of taxing garage operators, you are seeking to deter driving and parking because those things cause congestion and air pollution. The tax attaches an additional cost to those behaviors. I think it would not be business owners, but drivers that fought the tax (the only business owners who would care are the garage owners). I recognize that it would be politically challenging, but I think it would be a good idea. We don't pay for our tailpipe emissions or our contribution to congestion. Increasing fees associated with driving will ultimately make alternative forms of transportation more attractive.
Business owners will complain b/c their employees will complain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2014, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Business owners will complain b/c their employees will complain.
I just happened to read this article today about how Stanford got its employees to take transit to work.

The went from 70% single occupancy car to 40% single occupancy car. And it isn't right by the train station, more like 1 mile away.

Stanford transportation czar to retire, leaving blueprint behind - Silicon Valley Business Journal

I am sure people probably complained initially, but they took away most of the roadblocks for employees, and saved from having to construct 2000-3000 more parking spaces. (And parking construction costs anywhere from $10k-30k a space, this doesn't include ongoing maintence.)

The make it super easy not to drive from free shuttle to the train, subsidized transit passes and even working with transit agencies to create bus routes to better serve its employees (even ones that live 30 miles away).

Interesting model in how business can help encourage transit / reduce congestion.

PS Stanford is in an area of the bay where nobody takes transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top