Threat to ride-sharing at Sky Harbor (Phoenix: zoning, authority, light rail)

[orlando-calrissian]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Definitely agree that an educated populace is needed, but why should taxpayers be on the hook for it? Numerous studies have stated that private schools are superior to public schools in many ways, especially in the educational quality. Kids who attended private schools are much more likely to earn a Bachelor degree (or higher) in college, and have successful careers compared to the ones who attended public schools. Off the topic, but it's a valid point.

I'm paying thousands every year for a system that I have no use for, and I'm forced to pay it in order to avoid being penalized, or a lien put on my house! I'm paying rental car taxes to help subsidize a sports/entertainment complex that I don't use, but I pay it anyway because I'm forced to whenever I rent cars. At the same time, you aren't forced to use a train that you don't see as beneficial. Quite frankly, I don't use the SkyTrain either because I have little or no reason to even go to Sky Harbor, but the costs amount to a mere drop in the bucket compared to public education and other things we're paying for.

Off topic, but isn't this an unfair comparison? The kids that attend private school tend to come from more affluent families and therefore have more support from parents to learn successfully. There are several students that do well in public school but the overall rate of success is lowered by students that either couldn't care less about their education or parents who are unable to stay on top of their education. Are the studies you referenced controlling for the salaries of the parents, the quality of the schools & educators, etc?

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Off topic, but isn't this an unfair comparison? The kids that attend private school tend to come from more affluent families and therefore have more support from parents to learn successfully. There are several students that do well in public school but the overall rate of success is lowered by students that either couldn't care less about their education or parents who are unable to stay on top of their education. Are the studies you referenced controlling for the salaries of the parents, the quality of the schools & educators, etc?

Off topic. Move your post or start another thread.

[exit2lef]

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has issued a tentative finding that the new charges at the airport probably violate state law, but is deferring to the state supreme court for a final ruling:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ys/4491092002/

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has issued a tentative finding that the new charges at the airport probably violate state law, but is deferring to the state supreme court for a final ruling:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ys/4491092002/

Interesting. And what will the Supreme Court do? Any ideas?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Interesting. And what will the Supreme Court do? Any ideas?

It's a conservative-leaning court with a majority of judges appointed by Governor Ducey. My best guess is that they'll agree with the AG. If that happens, Phoenix has 30 days to rescind the airport fees or face a loss of its state revenue sharing funds. Given that set of circumstances, the city council would almost certainly reverse course since state funds are one-third of the city's revenue.

While this will no doubt be hailed as a victory by Uber, Lyft, and their defenders, it has some serious long-term implications. The realtor lobby persuaded Arizona voters to approve Proposition 126, which bans all new taxes or fees on services. It doesn't just require voter approval for new taxes on services. It bans them outright. That could create serious problems if the state faces a budget crisis or the economy continues to shift from tangible goods to services. Proposition 126 faced bipartisan opposition because it was so rigid. It has proven useful to one side in this fight, but eventually the state and its cities and towns are going to need some flexibility, if only to account for inflation.

Edit: Here's some more detail. Apparently, the city would lose 10% of state funds, not all of them.

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/phoeni...mark-brnovich/

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

It's a conservative-leaning court with a majority of judges appointed by Governor Ducey. My best guess is that they'll agree with the AG. If that happens, Phoenix has 30 days to rescind the airport fees or face a loss of its state revenue sharing funds. Given that set of circumstances, the city council would almost certainly reverse course since state funds are one-third of the city's revenue.

Good.

While this will no doubt be hailed as a victory by Uber, Lyft, and their defenders, it has some serious long-term implications. The realtor lobby persuaded Arizona voters to approve Proposition 126, which bans all new taxes or fees on services. It doesn't just require voter approval for new taxes on services. It bans them outright. That could create serious problems if the state faces a budget crisis or the economy continues to shift from tangible goods to services.

Why is the answer to a "crisis" always higher taxes and not reduce spending? That's what every human organization on Earth other than government needs to do... cut spending to match revenue, not demand that revenue must appear from somewhere to match spending. Especially when the higher taxes never go away after the crisis is solved.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Why is the answer to a "crisis" always higher taxes and not reduce spending? That's what every human organization on Earth other than government needs to do... cut spending to match revenue, not demand that revenue must appear from somewhere to match spending. Especially when the higher taxes never go away after the crisis is solved.

I assume corporations fall under the category of "every human organization on Earth." If so, it's not true that expenses are always cut to match revenue. In just the past year, I've experienced increases in my electric bill, my cable bill, my newspaper subscription, and the menu prices at some of my favorite restaurants. Usually, the justification has been increased expenses. Reasonable people can debate where to strike the optimal balance between cutting expenses and raising revenues, but it's incorrect to assume the private sector always does the former and never the latter.

Also, not all taxes are permanent. Phoenix's sales tax on food was enacted in 2010 as the city faced a revenue shortfall due to the recession. In 2014, it was reduced, and in 2015 it went away entirely. Whether the tax was a good idea or not, it did not stay around forever. Of course, we're getting way off topic. I guess that's my fault for saying that Proposition 126 was a bad idea, even if it's helping Uber and Lyft get their way at Sky Harbor.

[exit2lef]

Uber is now being specific about a January 31 deadline for things to go their way or they leave Sky Harbor:

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...harbor-airport

Knowing that this is now in the hands of the Arizona Supreme Court, perhaps Uber is trying to add some urgency to the situation. I doubt, however, that the seven justices, regardless of how they are inclined to rule on this issue, appreciate being told what timeline they should follow.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Uber is now being specific about a January 31 deadline for things to go their way or they leave Sky Harbor:

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...harbor-airport

Knowing that this is now in the hands of the Arizona Supreme Court, perhaps Uber is trying to add some urgency to the situation. I doubt, however, that the seven justices, regardless of how they are inclined to rule on this issue, appreciate being told what timeline they should follow.

No big deal. The SC will issue a stay, I'm sure, if they need more time to review. Uber service will then continue as-is.

[exit2lef]

Phoenix has announced it will delay implementation until the Arizona Supreme Court issues a ruling. That will take a while since oral arguments are not scheduled to occur until March.