• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Beware for the people who live in the Bay Area.

This is not surprising. SF politicians have been fleecing their middle class for decades, tax them to the other side of the bridge. LoL
 
Honestly, I'm in favor of this. Not because I'm some hippie treehugger but come on - who isn't annoyed by congestion?

I've always said we should make driving as expensive as possible, so that only people who really love driving will do it. To me there's nothing worse than taking the NSX out on one of northern California's many amazing driving roads only to get stuck behind a Prius or a minivan doing 15mph under the speed limit.

Anything that gets non-passionate drivers off the roads and onto BART or something else is a win for those of us who see every trip as an opportunity to enjoy our cars.

That being said... I'll move before I put a tracking device on my car. They already check the odometer mileage every time the car is smogged... why not adjust registration renewal fees based on miles traveled since your last smog check?
 
Article also says decade or more before implementation. Anything can change in the meantime.

Also, how would they be able to keep track of cars that are registered outside of the Bay Area tax zone? I'll transfer registration to Los Angeles.

Sounds too complicated to really work. Each city within the zone would have to agree. Or will the entire State of California implement this?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm in favor of this. Not because I'm some hippie treehugger but come on - who isn't annoyed by congestion?

I've always said we should make driving as expensive as possible, so that only people who really love driving will do it. To me there's nothing worse than taking the NSX out on one of northern California's many amazing driving roads only to get stuck behind a Prius or a minivan doing 15mph under the speed limit.

It's not going to reduce congestion, people who drive will continue driving, it will just cost them more money. Also, let's say it DOES reduce road congestion, this only serves to SHIFT that congestion elsewhere. Congestion on BART is better? People who are higher income will most likely continue to drive and just pay the tax because the cost will mean less to them. It shouldn't much affect lower income individuals because they may already take BART. So what does that leave us? Yes, middle income folks, like many of us, who drive for a myriad of reasons will either be inconvenienced by a more crowded public transit system (and limited scheduling) or just be fleeced by the city and continue driving. Other than all of that it's a great idea.....
 
Last edited:
Also, how would they be able to keep track of cars that are registered outside of the Bay Area tax zone? I'll transfer registration to Los Angeles.

Sounds too complicated to really work. Each city within the zone would have to agree. Or will the entire State of California implement this?

Yep, you hit it on the head. Taxes affect people's behavior by.... moving them to avoid the tax penalty, not so much into the actual change of the behavior they want to tax. Apparently a certain set of knucklehead politicians who run this state can't seem to understand this.
 
It's not going to reduce congestion, people who drive will continue driving, it will just cost them more money. Also, let's say it DOES reduce road congestion, this only serves to SHIFT that congestion elsewhere. Congestion on BART is better? People who are higher income will most likely continue to drive and just pay the tax because the cost will mean less to them. It shouldn't much affect lower income individuals because they may already take BART. So what does that leave us? Yes, middle income folks, like many of us, who drive for a myriad of reasons will either be inconvenienced by a more crowded public transit system (and limited scheduling) or just be fleeced by the city and continue driving. Other than all of that it's a great idea.....

+1. The idea of reducing the congestion, Co2 or whatever is irrelevant here. All they want is to get your money.

You have a good point - the congestion will be shifted else where and it will make us more inconvenient during work hours, if you choose to take BART or car pool. Rather get up 8AM , now we have get up at 6Am to get work place. Those politicians don't care because they have free cars( also free phones) to drive around and it is on taxpayers.

Another thing about the Bay Area is plastic bags are banned. They will charge you 10cents for the bag and if you are on Welfare food stamp you don't to pay for the bag, WTF:confused:? If they are concerned about pollution , how paper bags?
 
Last edited:
Pertty soon, there will be no cars registered in SF. They just don't get it, when the tax is too high, they simply get the hell out of Dodge.
 
"The Mercury News pointed out that pilot studies of mileage taxes have been conducted in Atlanta and also in several communities in Oregon and Washington. Drivers in those studies logged fewer miles when they were given a sum of money and then had amounts deducted based on how much they drove."

Giving someone money they didn't have in the first place and then telling them the less they drive, the more they keep ≠ Telling someone you'll NOT take MORE of their hard earned money if they drive less. This study isn't remotely applicable to the S.F. proposal, LoL. Geniuses, those people, I tell ya.
 

Latino population in San Francisco is underrepresented by about 20% points compared to that of the entire state. Black population of San Francisco is 6%. For a major metropolitan area that's absurdly low (though not as low as San Jose's 3%) What we generally see is an overrepresentation of minority populations in large cities compared with the rest of the residing state. San Francisco reverses this trend with the exception of Asians. When municipalities implement high taxes and fees upon its citizens who does this affect the most? Individuals and families on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. The two ethnic groups lowest on that scale? Blacks and Latinos. Make it too expensive to live somewhere and people will leave. The bay area is especially unique due to close proximity of many neighboring cities and BART, allowing for easy transit to these cities. In regards to San Francisco I use the term, "taxing them to the other side of the bridge." Couple this with the exceptionally high cost of living and you have an exodus to the 'burbs or valley and an increase in commuters.
 
Latino population in San Francisco is underrepresented by about 20% points compared to that of the entire state. Black population of San Francisco is 6%. For a major metropolitan area that's absurdly low (though not as low as San Jose's 3%) What we generally see is an overrepresentation of minority populations in large cities compared with the rest of the residing state. San Francisco reverses this trend with the exception of Asians. When municipalities implement high taxes and fees upon its citizens who does this affect the most? Individuals and families on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. The two ethnic groups lowest on that scale? Blacks and Latinos. Make it too expensive to live somewhere and people will leave. The bay area is especially unique due to close proximity of many neighboring cities and BART, allowing for easy transit to these cities. In regards to San Francisco I use the term, "taxing them to the other side of the bridge." Couple this with the exceptionally high cost of living and you have an exodus to the 'burbs or valley and an increase in commuters.

This is a very correct statement. The only way to root them out is to increase the tax, and make everything are more expensive. For instance, gas in SF is one of the most expensive in any cities. That is why they move to Oakland , which is cross the Bay Bridge. It also has very high crimes.
 
Last edited:
I got the hell out of SF/CA in 1993. That being said, the City and it's surrounding area are beautiful. Outstanding restaurants, too.
 
But you will still see tons of cars parking around the neighborhoods at nighttime.

Indeed, that just means they will hire more people to ticket those who park their cars in SF when the car is registered at their friend/family's place.

What about that rumor of taxing black cars more in California because it absorb heat and cost more to run?
 
Latino population in San Francisco is underrepresented by about 20% points compared to that of the entire state. Black population of San Francisco is 6%. For a major metropolitan area that's absurdly low (though not as low as San Jose's 3%) What we generally see is an overrepresentation of minority populations in large cities compared with the rest of the residing state. San Francisco reverses this trend with the exception of Asians. When municipalities implement high taxes and fees upon its citizens who does this affect the most? Individuals and families on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. The two ethnic groups lowest on that scale? Blacks and Latinos. Make it too expensive to live somewhere and people will leave. The bay area is especially unique due to close proximity of many neighboring cities and BART, allowing for easy transit to these cities. In regards to San Francisco I use the term, "taxing them to the other side of the bridge." Couple this with the exceptionally high cost of living and you have an exodus to the 'burbs or valley and an increase in commuters.


I would argue the main reason that drove people to move to the neighboring cities is cost of living, like housing prices, not taxes.
 
I would argue the main reason that drove people to move to the neighboring cities is cost of living, like housing prices, not taxes.

It's all a part of the equation. A political equation. Look at building and zoning laws and restrictions for the city of San Francisco. This, along with rent control laws, have heavily contributed to sky rocketing housing costs. As recently as the early 1970s the median cost of a home in the area was around the national average. It was during this decade that coastal California (S.F. especially) housing costs skyrocketed past the national average, upwards of 14x median income at the height of the bubble. More specifically it was the cost of land that increased so rapidly. What gives? This coincided with the spread of severe land use restriction policies. That's right, politicians started making it more expensive by way of legislation. This caused something of an artificial scarcity of land. Could it be that simply a lot more people moved to the area? Not really. Population for the area increased right along with the national average at the time. Rent control doesn't help either. Rent control serves to raise average rents by land lords grossly overcharging for units that lapse rent control. Another way average rents increase are builders taking advantage of exceptions to rent control. One of these exceptions is luxury housing. More of these expensive luxury housing units are sprouting up in San Francisco because builders are given incentive to avoid units falling under the jurisdiction of rent control. Taxes are the icing on the cake of the politics that make cost of living more expensive.
 
Last edited:
People (of all persuasions) leave cities when they can afford to live elsewhere more cheaply. SF (I was born and raised there) is 49 square miles... there's only so much land (think Manhattan) -- it ain't gonna get cheaper.
 
People (of all persuasions) leave cities when they can afford to live elsewhere more cheaply. SF (I was born and raised there) is 49 square miles... there's only so much land (think Manhattan) -- it ain't gonna get cheaper.

Nope, it won't get cheaper. But public policy only accelerates rising costs. This phenomenon isn't isolated to San Francisco but the Bay Area pols LOVE their restrictions, regulations and taxes.
 
It's all a part of the equation. A political equation. Look at building and zoning laws and restrictions for the city of San Francisco. This, along with rent control laws, have heavily contributed to sky rocketing housing costs. As recently as the early 1970s the median cost of a home in the area was around the national average. It was during this decade that coastal California (S.F. especially) housing costs skyrocketed past the national average, upwards of 14x median income at the height of the bubble. More specifically it was the cost of land that increased so rapidly. What gives? This coincided with the spread of severe land use restriction policies. That's right, politicians started making it more expensive by way of legislation. This caused something of an artificial scarcity of land. Could it be that simply a lot more people moved to the area? Not really. Population for the area increased right along with the national average at the time. Rent control doesn't help either. Rent control serves to raise average rents by land lords grossly overcharging for units that lapse rent control. Another way average rents increase are builders taking advantage of exceptions to rent control. One of these exceptions is luxury housing. More of these expensive luxury housing units are sprouting up in San Francisco because builders are given incentive to avoid units falling under the jurisdiction of rent control. Taxes are the icing on the cake of the politics that make cost of living more expensive.

They kept their eyes shut in Orange County too. It's call "collecting that property tax."
 
Back
Top