Commuter Tax for Suburbanites?

[adaniel]

I'm not in favor of this. It's unwieldy at best. Make the core such a great place to live, shop, dine and recreate that people either choose to live in the city or they come here for fun. That will bring enough tax dollars in.

By the way, anyone who hasn't shopped on Auto Alley is missing some outstanding stores.

Agree with this. Its a slippery slope to tax people who want to come to your city and spend money that will be taxed again.

If transportation funding on the interstates is really an issue, we should expand the use of toll lanes. IMO that's the only way certain highways are going to be expanded and funded under the current political climate.

And at least in OK, I think this sidesteps the more serious issue that cities here under the current constitution are very limited in how they fund themselves. I don't see a commuter tax changing this.

[tomokc]

I think they've actually talked about the London fee on TopGear before now that you mention it. I think they basically call it a congestion fee though. But essentially you can drive in London, but certain areas where there can be high congestion you have to pay a fee to drive.

The London Congestion Charge is a daily charge of £10 (about $15) which applies to private vehicles operating in central London M-F 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and is assessed using security cameras and license plate recognition software.

[Teo9969]

Before we go doing anything drastic, let's give downtown 5 years to evolve and see how it affects the city overall. OKC will well over double the population of downtown by then, and we'll have a better idea if re-urbanizing is actually working based on the market conditions and what's in the pipe-line. If in 5 years, OKC starts seeing a significant increase in new and redeveloped for sale housing in the core, then the market is dictating that it's working.

If in 5 years Maywood Apartments are half empty, then OKC needs to start finding ways to address the issue.

Of those issues, OKC needs to address the school issue first and foremost. People will not quit moving to the suburbs until OKC is more competitive in education.

And then the other thing I would say is that rather than tax those who are farther out, find ways to incentivize people living and working in the core. This is Oklahoma…we need to recognize the fact that we are going to have a much different view of transportation. Legislation is simply not going to pass in this city that demonizes the use of the automobile. So incentivizing core-living is the only way things are going to work, and that's likely going to have to happen through the state, not OKC as a municipality.

[Paseofreak]

Shouldn't there be a way to recover the significant additional cost of getting water to them and sewage back over the much greater distance to the treatment plant? How about the extra cost of handling additional storm water generated by inefficient land use.

[PennyQuilts]

You start taxing people further out, you'll see property costs close in go through the roof. And if you don't like having to pay for suburban roads, be prepared to pay your share of all the goods and services trucked into the city. Trying to force people into the city by taxing them to the point where it made sense for them to move has a ton of unintended consequences, including driving off companies that would no longer be able to sell this place to its employees as having a low cost of living. This notion, in my opinion, is foolhardy and would destroy one of the city's best attractions - great place for the price.

No one wants to live crammed into a flat, hot city with iffy public schools in the center of the country where there are no mountains, oceans or Forests, and where there is no airline hub. Toss in the additional traffic and the notion that taxes make it too expensive to even live in the suburbs and you've got just a marketer's dream. Not.

[Snowman]

Don't commuters already pay enough in higher fuel prices? Why shouldn't the free market decide where people live?

No, the fuel tax does not cover half of the construction and maintenance cost of the road network of interstates. Plus unless they are spending a lot on dinning at work they probably are not covering the cost of local roads or services to their workplace. The current situation is more like teens expecting to borrow off a parrent forever than the free market.

[catch22]

You start taxing people further out, you'll see property costs close in go through the roof. And if you don't like having to pay for suburban roads, be prepared to pay your share of all the goods and services trucked into the city. Trying to force people into the city by taxing them to the point where it made sense for them to move has a ton of unintended consequences, including driving off companies that would no longer be able to sell this place to its employees as having a low cost of living. This notion, in my opinion, is foolhardy and would destroy one of the city's best attractions - great place for the price.

No one wants to live crammed into a flat, hot city with iffy public schools in the center of the country where there are no mountains, oceans or Forests, and where there is no airline hub. Toss in the additional traffic and the notion that taxes make it too expensive to even live in the suburbs and you've got just a marketer's dream. Not.

While I agree with some of your post. I strongly disagree with "great place for the price". Oklahoma is a terrible "place". There is no sense of place here. The suburbs are extremely bland and boring, and the cool areas are very small in number and scale. This may be a great place to drive your minivan and go to the movie theater after the Furr's Sunday brunch. But it is not what the young people want, it is slowly changing, but it isn't there yet. This is just a cheap place to live, but it's nowhere near being a great place.

[Zuplar]

Shouldn't there be a way to recover the significant additional cost of getting water to them and sewage back over the much greater distance to the treatment plant? How about the extra cost of handling additional storm water generated by inefficient land use.

I have OKC water, not sewage, but I have rural fees associated with my bill for storm water, etc.

[Zuplar]

While I agree with some of your post. I strongly disagree with "great place for the price". Oklahoma is a terrible "place". There is no sense of place here. The suburbs are extremely bland and boring, and the cool areas are very small in number and scale. This may be a great place to drive your minivan and go to the movie theater after the Furr's Sunday brunch. But it is not what the young people want, it is slowly changing, but it isn't there yet. This is just a cheap place to live, but it's nowhere near being a great place.

I get your point, and as much as this city can add amenities, it can never add landscape, or should I say the landscape you are referring too. What makes places like Miami and Denver desirable places to live for some, is something Oklahoma can never have unfortunately.

I wonder sometimes if the amenities we do get hurt us more than they help. Take kayaking for example. Before the boathouse district there wasn't much kayaking around, I've gone down the Illinois River and down in Broken Bow. Options are limited and some people around here are never going to drive those places to do something they aren't sure they will like. But now with the Oklahoma River you can try it out, and lets say you love it so much, you want to kayak all the time. It's only a matter of time before you realize if you want to do that, you'd probably be better off somewhere in Colorado. Just something to think about.

[Teo9969]

I get your point, and as much as this city can add amenities, it can never add landscape, or should I say the landscape you are referring too. What makes places like Miami and Denver desirable places to live for some, is something Oklahoma can never have unfortunately.

I wonder sometimes if the amenities we do get hurt us more than they help. Take kayaking for example. Before the boathouse district there wasn't much kayaking around, I've gone down the Illinois River and down in Broken Bow. Options are limited and some people around here are never going to drive those places to do something they aren't sure they will like. But now with the Oklahoma River you can try it out, and lets say you love it so much, you want to kayak all the time. It's only a matter of time before you realize if you want to do that, you'd probably be better off somewhere in Colorado. Just something to think about.

For the casual fan of certain amenities, the answer to that is that ideally living in OKC grants you more disposable income, so excursions are more affordable.

[Just the facts]

I think a commuter tax is probably a bad idea unless it was an increase in the local gasoline tax. I would prefer that any effort to reduce sprawl be done so while saving money at the same time.

If it was JTF's call I would go with the "Toll Every Interstate" plan instead. I would couple the toll with the closure of most interstate exits in metro-OKC and remove I-235 once it passes its lifespan.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportatio...nterstate.html

[Spartan]

I don't think Indy is going to do a commuter tax. This policy makes more sense for cities like New York (where Bloomberg tried one) or LA or Chicago where the city literally doesn't need the suburbs.

[BG918]

I think a much higher gas tax for non-commercial (non-trucker) vehicles would be about the same as you are proposing. If you are paying much more for your gas you might rethink living in southeast Moore and commuting to north OKC everyday, and instead look at closer-in neighborhoods. This also helps reduce air pollution if people are spending less time in their cars. And it helps pay for badly-needed infrastructure improvements.

[Spartan]

The last benefit, helping pay for badly needed infrastructure improvements, is key. If we're doing this Denver-style that could mean a comprehensive new transit network including freeway expansion and commuter rail.

The problem here is we have a need for one and not the other..

[Jeepnokc]

Shouldn't there be a way to recover the significant additional cost of getting water to them and sewage back over the much greater distance to the treatment plant? How about the extra cost of handling additional storm water generated by inefficient land use.

Oklahoma City doesn't provide water, sewage, or storm water drainage to all within its city limits. The thirty homes in my subdivision are on septic, well and the water drains to the creek which runs to the south Canadian river. The only city utility services we get is trash pick up. Our neighborhood backs up to the airport so we aren't that far out.

[Zuplar]

Oklahoma City doesn't provide water, sewage, or storm water drainage to all within its city limits. The thirty homes in my subdivision are on septic, well and the water drains to the creek which runs to the south Canadian river. The only city utility services we get is trash pick up. Our neighborhood backs up to the airport so we aren't that far out.

I agree. I would consider people west of Mustang to be far out/rural.

[PennyQuilts]

While I agree with some of your post. I strongly disagree with "great place for the price". Oklahoma is a terrible "place". There is no sense of place here. The suburbs are extremely bland and boring, and the cool areas are very small in number and scale. This may be a great place to drive your minivan and go to the movie theater after the Furr's Sunday brunch. But it is not what the young people want, it is slowly changing, but it isn't there yet. This is just a cheap place to live, but it's nowhere near being a great place.

You should leave, seriously. I love it here and a lot of other people do, too. I don't know what you are looking for but there are bound to be places that appeal to you that won't cause you to feel like you are getting gypped. Why in the world would someone want to stay in a place like this feeling that way? And why do you make the assumption that people who love it here live in the suburbs and go to Furrs? I feel slandered, actually. That is not Oklahoma City unless you want it to be and why you would want to paint people that way is a mystery. It may not be cool enough for you but you don't have to make things up.

[PennyQuilts]

For the casual fan of certain amenities, the answer to that is that ideally living in OKC grants you more disposable income, so excursions are more affordable.

That's exactly right. Living here allows people to have nice homes with decent schools, jobs and still be able to take regular trips to other places that appeal to them. NOtwithstanding how so many trash it as not even being a place and fixating on suburbs, I know plenty of people "from Oklahoma" who live other places and they take with them a strong sense of home. It's a fabulous place to put down roots and be part of a city that is growing up.

[Just the facts]

Oklahoma City doesn't provide water, sewage, or storm water drainage to all within its city limits. The thirty homes in my subdivision are on septic, well and the water drains to the creek which runs to the south Canadian river. The only city utility services we get is trash pick up. Our neighborhood backs up to the airport so we aren't that far out.

What about police, fire, roads, etc...?

[Jeepnokc]

What about police, fire, roads, etc...?

That is why I specified city "utility" services. However, the main road to our neighborhood is also the same road to FAA so no real additional use from the 30 homes in our neighborhood. I very rarely ever see an OKC police car in my area (and never in the neighborhood itself) but do see the Sheriff's patrol. I would guess considering that most of the homes in my neighborhood are 450k to 1.2m that we are probably contributing more in property taxes than we are using. I would love to have a fire hydrant anywhere near my property to make my house insurance go down but the city doesn't provide us that either. (not even on 104th which is the road adjacent to airport on south side)

[bradh]

That's exactly right. Living here allows people to have nice homes with decent schools, jobs and still be able to take regular trips to other places that appeal to them. NOtwithstanding how so many trash it as not even being a place and fixating on suburbs, I know plenty of people "from Oklahoma" who live other places and they take with them a strong sense of home. It's a fabulous place to put down roots and be part of a city that is growing up.

That's well put Penny. I could pay to move closer to skiing, but the increase in cost of living probably limits how often I could ski (plus my wife and I can't just create jobs there specifically for us). Instead, we live here, and try to do our part in helping the city grow out of what catch22 is unfairly pigeon holing it as (although I know they were just tongue in cheek)

[Just the facts]

That is why I specified city "utility" services. However, the main road to our neighborhood is also the same road to FAA so no real additional use from the 30 homes in our neighborhood. I very rarely ever see an OKC police car in my area (and never in the neighborhood itself) but do see the Sheriff's patrol. I would guess considering that most of the homes in my neighborhood are 450k to 1.2m that we are probably contributing more in property taxes than we are using. I would love to have a fire hydrant anywhere near my property to make my house insurance go down but the city doesn't provide us that either. (not even on 104th which is the road adjacent to airport on south side)

It sounds like you are happy being in a T2/T3 zone. Let's hope it stays that way and the city doesn't allow a lot of houses to be built in your area.

[Jeepnokc]

It sounds like you are happy being in a T2/T3 zone. Let's hope it stays that way and the city doesn't allow a lot of houses to be built in your area.

Never seen the chart. Very cool. I actually hope they build more as that will bring more restaurants and shopping closer. Our neighborhood is all 5-8 acre lots and covenants against subdividing or building more than one residence per lot so we are pretty insulated. There is a lot of development as far as housing west of I-44 along the areas of sw 104th, 119th and 134th which is why I think the commercial development at the airport will work and why I think you will the I 44 corridor grow. What stinks is the people further out have city utility services. It has more roof tops further out but because our area is mainly three neighborhoods of 5-8 acre lots and then the land south of the airport isn't developed due to the flight paths, they won't come back to us. Just as well....I can water my yard whenever I want from my well.

[gopokes88]

If we had a per mile flat rate for road usage, you'd have a commuter tax. This wanting to live 40 miles from work would pay more than those who want to live next door.

We literally have this exact thing. It's called gasoline taxes. They need to be raised because of the increased full efficiency in vehicles.

[old okie]

Sorry, but this is a terrible idea. If the goal is to punish people driving in from the suburbs, or more distant parts of the City, to partake of the activities spread out across the downtown and other niche areas, then a "commuter tax" would certainly do the trick. As a retirees, we don't "have" to go to Bricktown, the Arts Festival, state fair, Paseo, Penn Square & Quail Springs, or any place, but I suspect that those areas/activities appreciate our patronage. So why should "we" be punished because we are old and enjoy driving to places other than our neighborhood? How about going to doctors' appointments or to visit friends? Just because we don't live in the "downtown core," should we be told we can't drive somewhere else without paying extra? We pay taxes--lots of them, starting w/gasoline taxes, etc.

The logistics of such an idea boggles the mind. And the "law of unintended consequences" from this suggestion of a "commuter tax" would be beyond belief. If the goal is to kill economic growth and development, this would be a great way to do it.