NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/activism/18902

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.activism:18902 talk.politics.drugs:7486
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!wsu-cs!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bu008
From: [e-mail] (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Date: 17 Nov 1992 06:14:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <ZwC=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (hettmansperger,robert) says:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, [e-mail] () says:
>>
>>>How about residential streets, are you going to put one of
>>>your great private sector toll booths at the end of every driveway before
>>>you get on one of your private sector roads.  At what point would it be
>>>O.K. with you for a community to gather money throughout the population to
>>>finance something that is beneficial to everyone?(i.e. taxes)
>>>
>>Well, I *live* in a neighborhood with privately own roads.  It is a mobile
>>home court, about one mile on a side.  The roads are generally better
>>quality than the ones the city maintains only a few hundred feet away,
>>and there are sidewalks and streetlights.  We have a very low crime rate.
>>No tollbooths; it is part of the monthly lot rent, which is $175/mo.
>>It is not hard to imagine such a system being extended to a neighborhood
>>of another type.  In areas where the residents own the property their
>>homes sit on, the cost might be stipulated in the deed.
>>
>
>So let's see... If you rent, the costs for roads is taken from the rent.
>If you own, then the costs for roads is stipulated in the deed.
>
>Not only have you just created the illusion of taxation, but you have also
>completely removed your beloved concept of usage-based fees.
>
It is not taxation, however.  It *is* a user fee...a fee assessed against
the people who derive by far the heaviest benefit from the service -- i.e.,
the people who live in the neighborhood.  Yes, there are some free riders,
but I am willing to tolerate a few free riders to dispense with the hassle
of toll booths and the coercion of taxation.  This is also not taxation
because it is not coercive...I am not required to sign that lease or deed
if I think the price is too high.

>Not only that, think what a pain it would be to run utilities throughout
>neighborhoods.  Or do you believe that when a utility company wants to run
>a new gas line, sewer, phone line, etc. under a roadway, that they must
>make individual negotiations with each of the land owners of that road?
>What a nightmare...
>
Not much of one.  "In exchange for the fee of $XX, and in exchange for
the homes in this neighborhood being wired to the utilities grid, Company X
grants an easement to Company Y to run utility lines in the following
specified locations."

Same as now...you want to be wired for cable, you have to let the cable
company dig up your yard, or string wire across your property, or however
they choose to handle it.  It is hard to imagine why a company which owns
the roads ina given neighborhood would wish to deny this...it is in their
neighborhood's interests.


>-Bob
>

--
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.