From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   >   
   >"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >news:lqk2v2$9ij$1@news.albasani.net...   
   >> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:lqjqm8$rli$1@news.albasani.net...   
   >>>> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:58:03 PM UTC-4, Glen Labah wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>It's rather hard to take anything on an Americans for Prosperity web   
   >>>>>>>>>site seriously.  It's a mouthpiece basically for the Koch Brothers.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Just a quick glimpse at their website shows all sorts of distortions   
   >>>>>>>>about the investment costs in transit, Amtrak, highways and airways.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>They jumped onto the "free wine" bandwagon of complaints about Amtrak   
   >>>>>>>>food service.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Bottom line:  my property taxes go up to pay for more highways.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>The gas tax needs to go up, not your property taxes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>Perhaps you could explain how there's no relationship between   
   >>>>>>transportation and land value, George, so that hancock's property taxes   
   >>>>>>shouldn't go up if his highways are improved. If his highways suck,   
   >>>>>>his property taxes should go down.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>I did not address the issue of transportation and land values.  Land   
   >>>>>right   
   >>>>>on a railroad?  Noise.  Too close to an airport?  Noise.  Too close to a   
   >>>>>highway?  Noise.  It all depends on where and what.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In many of those cases, proximity is an advantage for certain land uses.   
   >>>> No one builds hotels for air travellers that aren't close to an airport.   
   >>>> No one builds big-box stores and large office buildings on minor roads.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If hancock's road takes him to an employment center with good jobs,   
   >>>> his land value rises. Why exactly shouldn't the highway be paid for   
   >>>> with property taxes?   
   >>>   
   >>>The fuel tax should pay for roads.   
   >>   
   >> Nonresponsive   
   >   
   >Yes it is responsive.  The fuel tax needs to pay for roads.  You cannot a   
   >national system with each person paying for the piece in front of his/her   
   >house.  That is 1600 thinking, and it did not work then.  It won't work now.   
      
   I'm not discussing a frontage assessment, George, but a plain old   
   property tax. I agree that a frontage assessment would be irrelevant   
   toward paying for highways. Land value is based on other places you   
   can get to readily that are worth getting to within a short time.   
   Fuel tax doesn't measure this.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)