MM: School Board Delays Annexation Vote, Your DeKalb Water Bill, and Parking Innovations
Decatur Metro | December 10, 2014 | 11:01 am
- Decatur School Board delays vote to support annexation [Decaturish]
- Eye on Decatur’s tree atop Little Shop [Next Stop…Decatur]
- An easier way to pay your DeKalb County water bill? [Commissoner Rader]
- MARTA, northern suburbs and streetcar [AJC]
- Developer proposes 22-story tower near Piedmont Park [ABC]
- Woodruff Arts Center gets $38 million gift [Saporta Report]
- 5 parking innovations every city should adopt [CityLab]
Photo courtesy of Marla Tiara
DeKalb already has a quick way for paying your water bill:
1. Generate random number
2. Put random number on water bill
3. Make you pay it
That was funny! The best humor is based on the truth.
On annexation, does the legislature just vote on the annexation and it is done, or does there need to be a referendum vote for the people in the “to be annexed zone”? I recall that when Decatur annexed the College Ave. properties, this was done exclusively in the legislature. Is this different?
If there is a vote required, then with the numbers going 2-1 against annexation in parcel D and 5-1 against in parcel A, why does the city feel these are viable, annexable parcels?
I guess I should have gone to the info session. If anyone can give me an education, I would appreciate it.
Have you been following the annexation stories on Decaturish? He does a great job of explaining a lot of how this will all get done and distinguishing between creating new cities and the possible annexation mechanisms.
On the numbers front, the surveys had a very low response rate, and were done before the annexation and cityhood discussions were well known to those who don’t usually follow city governance- I wouldn’t put much weight one way or another into the survey results now.
Thanks for the info. I will look at that site.
I understand about the data being with a low response rate, but according to the city, it was done fairly recently. Typically the most passionate will answer the surveys, but those are also the type of people that vote in referendums, so it is may be representative.
Hope the city is doing some type of outreach, or this may be all for naught.
For commercial areas, such as the College Ave annexation, only a legislative vote is required. For residential areas, the residents in that area vote but not anyone else, following a legislative vote.
Though people may say they’re opposed to annexation, does that necessarily translate into turning out to vote against it? In the case of annexation, it seems to me there is usually more organization to get out the votes on the “Yes” side.
Understood, But, the people in parcel “A” have also been asked by the Together in Atlanta folks to join them in Atlanta. Mayor Reed has endorsed this. So, it may be a tougher sell there because they may want to stay in their school zones, and 5 to 1 against is a deficit to overcome.
Parcel A is the most valuable parcel from an annexation perspective because it is almost exclusively commercial. If Decatur loses that one, what do the numbers look like?
I read the parking innovation article but I am not sure I see the logic of paying by length of car. Sure, a minivan is longer than a smartcar, but the driver can bring 6 other people and the Smartcar driver can only bring 1 extra. Maybe in conjunction there should there should be HOV parking spots for vehicles carrying 3 or more people…
Along a similar train of thought, here’s an impractical but interesting concept: Pay according to how far you drove to get there. Shorter distances pay more to encourage alternate means of transport, longer distances less to encourage more widespread patronage.
I particularly like this one. Big vehicles cost more–consume more fuel, generate more pollution, and take up more space. Those who choose to drive them should bear more of the extra cost directly. Sure, a minivan CAN carry more people but how often is that really the case? (Kids don’t count, as it’s unlikely they are spending money in same proportions as adults would, in support of surrounding retailers.) If the minivan really is bringing six adults, then they can all chip in for the parking.
How does that make sense: use reduced parking rates to encourage local shopping trips and the use of smaller cars, but use increased parking rates to encourage drivers of larger vehicles to drive further for cheaper parking?
If anything, larger cars should get a greater parking discount so they are encouraged to park the vehicle longer, since as (I hope we) all know, a parked car generates very little emissions.
We don’t want people leaving cars parked longer, we want more rapid turnover in parking spaces.
I’m not advocating lower rates for shorter trips. I’m advocating higher rates for vehicles that occupy more space.
We already do this a little bit. Which is why my tiny little Vespa parks for free!
I live just a few blocks from downtown. Normally I do walk, but, I also have pretty bad arthritis so sometimes I drive. I wonder how many of the “we need to discourage driving” comments are by people who in a few years will be in a similar situation as me and will possibly have a new perspective on that type of idea.
Not only that, but varying parking rates by vehicle size has the potential to be awfully regressive. The guy driving a gas-guzzling 7 series won’t care what the rates are, whereas a single mom toting 4 kids in a minivan may be quite sensitive to an increased rate.
Yeah, well, she’s getting a bunch of tax credits that I’ve never enjoyed (and never will). It’s an imperfect world.
I suppose so, but that’s hardly an excuse for making it even less perfect. I would object even more strongly to your proposal on more fundamental terms, but it’s at that very fundamental where you and I will never agree.
IMO my proposal would make the world less imperfect, not more imperfect. Fundamentally, I think people who make choices that foist negative consequences on everyone should have to shoulder more of that responsibility than they now do in most contexts.
Right down to the simple act of parking a car. When you expand the scope of externalities so massively, everything is regulated and fodder for the political war of all against all. No thanks.
Everything is regulated, it’s just not done in a rational manner. It’s the resulting inequities that fuel “political war of all against all.”
Not seeking to convince you because I know I can’t, and also not meaning to dismiss your contrasting viewpoint. Just further articulating my own.
Understood, and same here. We disagree at a very basic level but respectfully.
Are you saying that choosing to have children is one these choices that foist negative consequences on everyone?
No. I’m objecting to the tax credits available to people who have children.
The tax credits do not come even close to making up to the expense of having children.
So what? Why should anyone subsidize the costs of someone else’s children?
If you aren’t willing and/or able to incur the expense of rearing them, then don’t have children. I am totally on board with contributing part of my property tax to support public schools. But I deeply resent households with children enjoying individual income tax credits that are not available to those of us who, for whatever reasons, opt not to multiply. IMO the government should not be in the business of endorsing, subsidizing, discouraging or penalizing lifestyle choices such as who and whether to marry or whether and how often to procreate. I have worked hard all my life, voted at every opportunity, appeared for jury duty when summoned, kept my front yard in reasonable condition, been kind to animals and generous to the less fortunate, returned my shopping cart to the designated holding area and flossed my teeth with fair regularity. And yet, I have been financially penalized for remaining single and childless. I’m sure you can understand my disgust.
For some reason I can’t reply to fbenario or small town girl: how is a tax deduction a subsidy? There are other, non- child related credits too like business expenses and the Health coverage tax credit.
And maybe it will seem more fair if you remember that today’s children will be subsidizing your Social Security checks someday.
You are probably are still better off financially than if you had had children. According to a 2005 Cornell University Study, mothers are 44% less likely to be hired than childless women and make $11,000 less. The child tax credit is $1,000 per child and is only for people/families making below a certain income: $110,000 is when it’s phased out for married couples filing jointly and there are some limitations.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, STG. Larkspur, would you be asking “how is a tax deduction a subsidy?” if it was a corporation that was taking a tax deduction? My guess is you would be calling it “Corporate Welfare.” What’s the difference?
Roll back marginal rates and get rid of all these various credits/deductions/exemptions, problem solved. But when you instead have a massively complicated scheme like the tax code, people are going to use it to subsidize/reward some behaviors while punishing others. This leads to understandable resentment on the part of people who don’t benefit. Sort of like . . . using parking meters to express disapproval of large cars. Like I said, it’s the war of all against all.
I believe that Reihan Salam has it right “By shifting the tax burden from parents to nonparents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society with its youthful vim and vigor. … The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break.”
That’s only partially true, because the tax credit phases out at around $100k in income. So we aren’t shifting the burden from parents to non-parents, we’re just using kids as another excuse to make an already overly progressive tax system even moreso.
Amen to your comment above STG. I do all of those you mention, except floss my teeth regularly! Maybe we should get “Good Citizen” tax credit?
Special exemptions could be created, similar to handicap parking entitlements.
The High Cost of Free Parking is a very informative book. One of Shoup’s most important concepts is to use the parking revenues for the benefit of the businesses in the parking district. For example, to improve sidewalks, maintain pocket parks, plant street trees. This way the local business and the customers benefit from the fees that are generated and streetscaping is maintained.
I do hope stg is a little less disgusted later in life when other people’s children are working and funding her social security check
Nice irrelevant straw-man. The disagreement here is over subsidization of children by others, not whether anyone is happy or not with children being born.
Yup, not only was that a straw-man argument by localmom, but our wonderful government officials put us in a position to need those children to fund our social security to begin with. Those same officials “should not be in the business of endorsing, subsidizing, discouraging or penalizing lifestyle choices”, as STG stated above.
I believe the credits and deductions for children are rooted in the idea that population growth is critical for the long-term health of society. Growth comes from two sources – immigration and birth rates above the replacement rate. For an example of what happens to an economy when immigration is restricted and birth rates are at or below the replacement rate, have a look at Japan. It’s not pretty.
That plus ability to pay. In a real sense, a family of 4 with 2 children has a lot more expenses than a family of 2 with none. So if those two families have the same reported income, the credits are partially intended to reflect the fact that family 1 has less disposable income than does family 2. I don’t say that to defend the credits, but just to offer it as a partial explanation as to why they exist. This shell game would not be necessary at all if rates were lower, as they should be.
Completely agree wth you re: Japan.
people having kids, like corporations getting tax breaks for relocating to a particular area, creates jobs. not only that, but it enlarges markets.
why should kids be subsidized, why should businesses be subsidized, why should the government do anything to affect how things happen in our country? probably because some people at least believe it’s good for the country.
I actually think the gov’t should do a lot more than it does to “affect how things happen in our country.” But I don’t think it should structure the tax system in a way that rewards particular life choices and penalizes others. The child tax credit was born in the Contract With America era and has been expanded several times since then. IMO it’s inappropriate and unfair and absolutely not good for the country. Since, as someone pointed out above, it doesn’t come close to equalizing the actual expense of having a kid, we can assume that eliminating it would not cause the birth rate to crash. Broaching the topic, however, will most assuredly keep any aspiring public official from making a meaningful primary run.
how is it bad for the country, if that’s what you mean by not good? (edit: the other meaning of not good i’m considering would be neutral)
“I actually think the gov’t should do a lot more than it does to “affect how things happen in our country.” But I don’t think it should structure the tax system in a way that rewards particular life choices and penalizes others.”
I would submit to you that these two goals are mutually exclusive, if not exactly than very nearly so. A government as active as you imagine is always going to reward some personal behaviors and punish others, and it’s going to do that through the tax code, among other things.
DEM, I couldn’t have said it better. Thank you, thank you.
STG, there are so many things in life that aren’t “fair” and will make you angry and resentful. It irritates me that regular citizens pay their taxes while many companies get away with paying next to nothing – and its bc the tax code allows this. I’m sorry, but you need to get over it.