After working hard to claim the title of the nation’s worst transit system, St. Louis Metro got itself into such a financial bind that it had to dramatically cut bus service. So voters naturally responded by tripling the agency’s tax base, giving it another half-cent sales tax on top of the quarter cent it already got.
No doubt Metro will take this money and After a stressful time that you had in your office, it is viagra rx online certain that you look for help at the right time. Health benefits of generic cialis canadian wild American Ginsenghad been known much before the medical industry flourished. The appearance of viagra cialis generico is similar to other drugs on the market like cialis. This is levitra online order the reason; you have to take a lot of anxiety. go build more rail transit lines that go way overbudget and put the agency in a financial bind requiring it to ask the voters for another tax increase. This will be declared another great victory for transit and proof that voters want “livability” rather than more of those filthy automobiles — even though those same voters drive for more than 90 percent of their travel.
Gov is supplying too many things without revenue.
The Federal budget has expenditures only 50% over revenue.
Just divide that $1.5 trillion equally among all persons.
Will be worse with the health deform. The CBO only worked with figs given to them by the redistributors.
Algonrosomapnia, the LA mayor has plans to close for 2 days/week.
How can all this tax revenue be down so much when the GDP is only down about 5%?
Too much reliance on the rich. When those fat cats (5% of earners, paying 60% of fed income taxes), have lower income…
Some transit systems, while failing to support themselves with revenue, are at least useful enough that people will ride them.
Having lived in St. Louis and attempted to use the Metro, I can assure you that not only is it a financial boondoggle, the rail system doesn’t even go anywhere useful. St. Louis is a city with plenty of parking and a reasonably decent automobile infrastructure.
So *of course* the right thing to do is cut bus service and demand more money. /sigh
I find it interesting that the small-minority usual suspects who opposed this tax got their hats handed to them again at the ballot box. And why did Randal fail to give the voting %ages?
This is not to say that business practices there are just ducky, but to point out the voting-age population again has…um…different…priorities than the collection of white conservative males who consistently oppose these ballot questions, whether in STL, ATL, MKE or BFE.
What is it about a large majority cross-section of voting society that consistently repudiates that small-minority view?
DS
#3 Merely because a majority agrees with a position does not make it the right decision or an informed one. The voters of the United States favor all sorts of very dumb things (e.g., agricultural subsidies); in other words, the fact that these things come into being or remain in place via voter preference says nothing about their merits.
“What is it about a large majority cross-section of voting society that consistently repudiates that small-minority view?”
This is a good question, but a slippery slope for both pro-planners and antiplanners. I think antiplanners will argue that the voters were duped and that they don’t fully understand how these things get paid for. 1/2 cent doesn’t seem like that much. The antiplanners will argue that they have a better grasp of economics than the “bewildered herd,” which in my estimation is probably true.
The problem for antiplanners is that this view puts them in the same category of people that they criticize so much. How many times have we heard the antiplanning community tell us planners that we are elitist know-it-alls who are trying to tell people have to live? But somehow, when the vast majority of voters pass a referendum that the antiplanners don’t like, they know better. Things that make you go “Hummm.”
#35 Everyone is in favor of planning; the issue is who is doing the planning. Centralized planning at the local level works about as well as centralized planning at the national level; and it is centralized planning that the “pro-planners” (whether they are conservative or liberal) generally favor.
The antiplanners will argue that they have a better grasp of economics than the “bewildered herd”
Ah. So that means they question the leaving everything up to the Wisdom of Market Decisions, and monetizing everything and leaving QOL to Markets then…
Oh, wait.
it is centralized planning that the “pro-planners†generally favor.
Eez good this another 5-year plan, comrade, da? Budem zdorovy!
DS
Jake,
I haven’t seen you comment here before, but I’ll give you my impression. Antiplanners hate centralized planning that results in outcomes they don’t like (i.e vertical mixed use, subsidies for transit, etc). They love centralized planning that results in outcomes they like (i.e highway building, single family subdivisions, etc), but they call this type of centralized, top down planning, the free market.
If planning isn’t centralized, at least at some scale, it’s not planning. It’s a free for all. Put another way, if pro-planners are advocating for socialism, then antiplanners are advocating for plutocratic anarchy.
bennett,
I mostly lurk.
“If planning isn’t centralized, at least at some scale, it’s not planning.”
Most useful order in human life is emergent in nature; it isn’t “centrally planned.” Central planning is a good way for rent seekers to profit though.
Dan,
As best as I can tell, urban planners love “X year plans.” Here is a pretty good example of what I am talking about: http://reason.org/blog/show/progressive-urban-dreams-centr
The Antiplanner wrote:
> This will be declared another great victory for transit and
> proof that voters want “livability†rather than more of those
> filthy automobiles — even though those same voters drive for
> more than 90 percent of their travel.
Some of us call that revealed behavior (as opposed to stated preference or wishful thinking).
Cannot pay full price for a product or service?
Sure, just tax others, for what one wants.
Just being by majority or mob rule does not make it just or fair.
Now, Congress isn’t following the majority.
Planning is good for what certain groups want?
One-size-fits-all? Planners claim that it’s not that & they want choice.
Really? You must do this…live like…take transit…walk…have very small or no yard.
The market, without obtrusive regs & specs, lets individuals decide.
Freedom is pursing what one wants [& can afford], without harming or infringing others. Why do leftists disagree with that.
Here is a pretty good example of what I am talking about
I agree: if you take out the hasty generalizations, conflation, and false premises, it is indeed a pretty good example of the love of the Central Planning (TM).
Some of us call that revealed behavior
And still some others wonder whether having only one choice to choose from is indeed revealing.
That is: if there were equal choices of, say, 5 different land use paradigms built in equal measure and in place since WWII, it would indeed be revealing in the revealed behavior.
Or maybe there has been roughly equal acreage of, say, SG, NU, TND, SS (Standard Sprawl), high density zoned since WWII and I just missed it.
DS
This is not to say that business practices there are just ducky, but to point out the voting-age population again has…um…different…priorities than the collection of white conservative males who consistently oppose these ballot questions, whether in STL, ATL, MKE or BFE.
Evidence?
Randal did not post the voting percentages, so I’ll give them to you: 63% in favor, 37% against. There is no information here to suggest that those who voted against were strictly white conservative males (indeed the article provides no evidence at all about the composition of voters), or indeed any particular social group.
As for the priorities of the voting-age population, you can’t gauge that from the election results, either. The article indicates that about 94,000 people voted in favor of the ballot question. St. Louis County has about 797,000 voters. This tells us that a tax increase was passed because less than 12% of eligible voters voted in favor of it. It also corroborates the observation that turnout in special elections is typically appallingly low. In this case under 20%. Rational ignorance strikes again.
Rational ignorance strikes again.
#thrashaboutforanythingtosaytoopposeDSfail
The point was not about conflating one election to something or other. I’m sorry you “missed” it.
The point was that nationwide local elections on questions that the usual suspects here oppose – over the past few years – consistently are not favorable to the small-minority ideology.
Zoning elimination. Funding for transportation options. Open space purchases. Conservation easements. Where are the big Koch victories on these issues? Consistent Koch victories? Several key Koch victories?
See, I even reiterated and restated at the end to make it easy to grasp:
Perhaps it could have been slightly differently worded, such as:
How’s that? Better?
DS
Did the ballot initiative involve a matching grant from the state or federal government?
I see that a related ballot initiative was previously rejected. What was the difference between the two ballot initiatives?
Choices are not equal. What an absurd proposition Dan.
Among x # of choices for anything, why should the results be close to parity?
People like personal mobility & personal space, so have chosen accordingly.
Dan, I’m curious as to why you’d claim this has anything to do with race. Do you have a source breaking out the vote showing that that it was a bunch of WASPs that were the difference this time? After all, this was defeated twice before this. Less than a 1/4 of the county’s eligible voters even bothered to vote in this election. A smaller tax increase was defeated in Nov 2008 when far, far, far, far, far more voters showed up at the polls and Obama won by a similar margin? Maybe the difference this time around was not skin color but there were 70% less voters this time around?
Again, for the third time, as above, the general trend in certain local election questions is to go against what the usual suspect adherents to the small-minority ideology argue here. Way against.
Another Randal lament of why doesn’t everyone take the sequestered, narrow miserable Bob Cratchit view instead of wanting choices in their lives? Why doesn’t everyone want a 1/2 acre yard? Why doesn’t everyone want to drive a car just to go to the bathroom? Why do people want green around instead of a sea of roofs? Why do people want zoning instead of living next to a crazy neighbor who can do whatever they want on their parcel?
Not hard for the vast majority of folk to understand why the questions are answered the way they are.
DS
Dan,
All your claims re: the story on Detroit are unsubstantiated.
/sigh
Having lived in St. Louis, I can tell you all that the vast majority of taxpayers think rail transit is a waste of money. But they don’t care enough to show up for a special election about it, whereas the people who do support it, support it vehemently. Hence, a small number of people have voted to fund more transit projects (which also lends false legitimacy through the ‘democratic’ process).
They’ll build it, and no one will ride. But St Louis will be a modern city, like they have in Yurp and New York!
/eyeroll
Pingback: Political Asymmetry » The Antiplanner
Dan,
I’m not sure why I bother.
I try debating & I refute your stances, with logic & facts. But you don’t realize it, avoid it (i.e. mentioning 1 item out of 6), don’t read back [after a few days] or just don’t plain understand.
However, that doesn’t apply to this thread.
For this thread, you have gone really bonkers.
You’re not making any points again.
It’s unclear on what your meanings are, of: local elections, usual suspects, small-minority ideology, Bob Cratchit view, ducky business practices, the way they are.
Your normal pattern is to type in your own language–vague words, general assertions, etc.
Maybe other lefty statists understand.
You also went on to pose questions about what people want.
Again, no point, especially on the choice of using car or pissing.
Part of your inability to comprehend is that you fail to see that their individual tastes & many choices are made for other reasons than “want”.
You also look at extremes, only, such as no zoning or excessive zoning.
You seem like you have no desire to communicate, nor to have cogent, persuasive arguments, for specific item. Most of your typing is gibberish jello, with no substance. It’s usually unknown what you stand for; you are just disagreeable. You are like the drunk guy at a party, but cannot be asked to leave or cracked across the head.
You obviously have no desire to discuss issues.
You go off on all these irrelevant tangents, & try to sound intellectual, but readers know that you are an immature fool.
What are you supporting?
Who pays?
Who benefits?
Who loses?
What parts of the Constitution can be violated?
What are the unintended consequences?
Perhaps it could have been slightly differently worded, such as:
What is it about a large majority cross-section of voting society that consistently repudiates the small-minority view?
How’s that? Better?
No. You’re going to have to be more explicit about what the “small-minority view” is. As the data I presented, along with the content of the article shows, the “small minority” in this case (around 19 percent of eligible voters) was really the people who voted in favor of the ballot question. Talking about “voting society” seems irrelevant to questions of public opinion if they themselves are a minority.
Again, as the St. Louis example shows, the vast majority of citizens find voting in such special elections to be an irrelevant activity. There are good explanations for this. The fact that the majority do not vote suggests that they are at best indifferent to the issue at hand. What is more, as Randal discusses in a subsequent post, the results of the special election probably have more to do with the matter of agenda control in special elections. The option posed to voters was an all-or-nothing one. Either you raise the sales tax to pay for these services or not. There is no “plan C”. Of course, once these ballot questions are approved, they are treated by the recipients of the funds as mandates, and are hard to overturn.
I would also like to know more about how informed the voters who actually participated in the election were. How much did they know about the ballot question? Where did they get their information?
I’m glad this issue was raised. I look forward to seeing results of more such special elections in the future, if only to have more evidence with which to describe the behavior of voters, interest groups, agenda-setting, turnout, and especially campaign spending in such elections. The turnout question in particular would tell you whether we are really dealing with majority or minority opinions.
“Again, for the third time, as above, the general trend in certain local election questions is to go against what the usual suspect adherents to the small-minority ideology argue here. Way against.”
Again, I’m confused as to how this is the case. Far, far, far less people voted this time around than just 1 1/2 ago. Why is the “minority” those opposing the measure when in fact 1 1/2 ago about 3 times as many voters voted against it than the number who voted for it this recent special election?
And again, what does skin color have to do with any of this?
Maybe you don’t mean to but it feels like you’re dancing around taking on direct answers to those issues. That’s your prerogative. Or maybe there’s something I’m missing?
Across. The. Country. Many. Questions. The. Small. Minority. Here. Are. For. The. Majority. Vote. Down. Trend. Usually. Not. Always. But. Usually. Not. Hard. To. Grasp.
H.T.H.
DS
Dan, Many commenters read your earlier comments and responded to them as if they were serious comments. This is your response? What are we supposed to make of your future comments?
What are we supposed to make of your future comments?
Some of the usual suspects will make misstatements about my future comments. Some will make mischaracterizations. Some will make believe they say something they do not. Some will make sh– up. And so on.
DS
Dan, on this website you are the King of mischaracterizing other people comments. You are the King of being making stuff up. You are the King of making your sewer pipe into your identity.
We all think it is hilarious that you can’t answer all the substantive challenges to your comments. You are now diminished to the point that your only response is to crawl further down the sewer.
Well O’Toole isn’t exactly a live and let live type of guy.
That’s another absurd statement that has no basis.
How do you conclude that?
Letting live? Consider that people like you want to force others how to live or force them to fund your lifestyle, should not live here.
ROTFLMAO!
I’m starting to understand that the performance artist making these parody characters and testing them on this site is trying to make one that is a mix of Cliff Clavin and Archie Bunker. Funny as h*ll.
DS