"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:04:19 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues
> >are paying for roads.
>
> That's an easy one:
>
> http://www.news-record.com/news/loca...dget052005.htm
>
> City manager’s proposal raises property tax rate
>
> Boynton proposed raising taxes a total of 5.3 cents per $100 of
> assessed value. For owners of a $150,000 home, their tax bill would
> rise $79.50.
>
> Most of the proposed tax hike — 3.4 cents — is earmarked to help pay
> for the $73.65 million in bond projects that include everything from
> wider roads and an expanded library to new fire stations and
> recreation centers.

You should have copied the rest of the article. The only
actual "road" project was reconstruction of a bridge, and
only $100,000 was included for that. There was another
$150,000 for studying the best way to route traffic through
the business district. Otherwise none of this bond money was
actually for roads. Furthermore, I'll bet that motor vehicle
revenues (gas tax transfers from the state and vehicle
registration fees) will more than cover the actual road
construction portions of the borrowed money. Politicians
often use roads as an excuse for raising taxes, when the
bulk of the money is actually going somewhere else. This is
clearly the case for your example. The $100,00 included in
this bond for bridge reconstruction could easily have been
paid from the 1.38 Million dollars in motor vehicle related
user fees collected by Greensboro
(http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/budget/...ing%20Fund.pdf)
.. Instead, a portion of these funds were diverted to pay for
$255,298 of sidewalk construction. It is much easier to get
people to approve a bond issue when you include "road
improvement" in the list of things the bond money is to be
used for. The truth is, the bond money devoted to road
improvement doesn't even come close to replacing the road
revenues that are being diverted to other purposes. It is
also important to note, that property taxes on vehicles are
a significant portion of the revenue stream. The increased
revenue associated with the rise in property taxes on
vehicles will more than cover the cost of the $250,00
borrowed for the bridge reconstruction and traffic study.
So, all you have done is confirm that motor vehicle derived
revenues are paying more than the amount needed to build and
maintain roads.

Interestingly for Greensboro, property taxes provide less
revenue than user fees and licenses. Less than 10% of the
Greensboro budget is related to transportation. And only a
tiny fraction of that is used for street maintenance. The
bulk of the money spent on maintaining Greensboro streets
comes from transfers from the state of North Carolina. And
according to the Greensboro budget (see
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/budget/...ll_%20Fund.pdf
) portions of this money are used to pay for "the
construction of sidewalks."

Again, if you look closely, you will see that motor vehicle
derived revenues are not only paying for the roads, the
revenue is actually being diverted to pay for other city
services. Bike riders need to thank car owners for providing
them with subsidies. Clearly other property taxes would have
to increase if cars were suddenly eliminated.

Ed