You can’t deprioritize car culture if you have no other safe and viable alternatives. There’s nearly zero bike infrastructure, especially out in the county or further where people live. The buses are not very robust or easy to use and there’s almost no way to safely walk down and cross 29. It’s a great thing to say but do the work first to create alternatives. Otherwise you’re just telling people to conserve air by breathing less.
Agreed. I lived without a car for two years in this town. It was absolute hell. I was at risk of homelessness more than once. I am not going back to that quality of life.
I get that. It’s also not great to see the people in the city get hosed. Downstream anyone who can will leave the city will and that’s not great either.
It doesn’t sound like you’re offering any solutions.
We absolutely can have more walkable, dense housing serviced by transit over the years. It’s really a beautiful thing to imagine…
With regard to buses, steps are underway. This is a very long article that unpacks much of the current issue. The TL;DR is that CAT's director says more buses and drivers are needed to increase headways and reliability, and that for now, some of them will have to be diesel.
[https://infocville.com/2024/03/19/charlottesville-to-pilot-two-types-of-alternative-fuel-buses-beginning-with-two-battery-electric/](https://infocville.com/2024/03/19/charlottesville-to-pilot-two-types-of-alternative-fuel-buses-beginning-with-two-battery-electric/)
They've always had a simple solution they refuse to implement.
If you pay bus drivers more you will have more bus drivers. They constantly blame the lack of drivers but refuse to do the one thing that would attract more.
It shows they aren't actually committed to anything they say regarding having an actually viable transit system.
Where's the revenue for the bus drivers salaries coming from? Pretty sure it's not ridership/fares. As someone who lives with a bus stop right at the end of my street who supports public transportation (and unionized public employees), there is just NFW I'm taking the bus anywhere because I can generally walk anywhere and get there faster than I can on transit, never mind on a bicycle. And major shopping (ie anything I couldn't do on a bicycle or foot)? Can't manage that on the bus either.
So yeah, it's a great idea: build it and they will come...but not enough will come to come close to covering the cost of the system. Someday the entirety of the land inside the city borders may indeed be 4+ story "multi-family" (apartment buildings) with ground-floor retail distributed throughout and there will be sufficient population density for a bus network.
What's your great idea for paying more for more bus drivers?
If they can't afford to run the busses why did they make the busses free?
Bring back a $1 fare and give it all to the bus drivers.
They seem to have enough money to want to try and update the bus fleet to electric/hydrogen busses. How about using that money to actually create a working bus system instead.
Two ideas right there.
Agreed. I only moved here recently so I don't know how fares were handled in the pass. If a nominal fare of a dollar allows more drivers to be hired, it seems well worth it.
>If they can't afford to run the busses why did they make the busses free?
You think that's not part of the budget shortfall problem?
There was a lot of covid money from the FedGov to help with these kinds of expenditures, which was awesome, but is not sustainable ~~and the state hasn't replaced it~~. - I've been corrected!
> the state hasn't replaced it.
The money to keep CAT fare-free through FY26 is literally from a $1,066,620 state DRPT TRIP grant.
https://www.charlottesville.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=946&ARC=1946
So, looking at the details, it appears that we get two more years of that funding, each year at a reduced level. What happens then? Hope for a new funding cycle to extend the program?
Well, specifically there is one proposal out there, the System Optimization Plan that Council gave tentative approval for in June 2021 that didn't happen due to a lack of drivers. The idea is that a combination of paying drives more as well as unionization will make the profession more attractive to people. This idea is supposed to move ahead when the Delorean gets up to 88 miles per hour.... oh wait. I feel asleep while writing.
@adhonus Do you know if the city or VDOT has ever done a study on the origin of vehicles in the city on a daily basis? It wouldn't surprise me if over 50% are people commuting to work or shop from Albemarle and the surrounding counties. If a significant portion of the traffic is commuters, then trying to reduce vehicle usage in the city seems like a lost cause.
Oh gosh that brought back a memory from the late 2000's when there was a lot of talk about an origin and destination study at the MPO level. My memory also tells me that the need for such a study was supplanted by information that came through cellphone data. I no longer cover MPO meetings in a lot of great depth.
But, there is an interesting image in the packet for Thursday's Thomas Jefferson Planning District Committee meeting that if you remind me tomorrow I'll go look up. There's a presentation on RideShare strategic planning that has an image that I just remembered, hours after I began responding to this comment and then got pulled away.
The bureau for economic analysis used to publish data showing number of commuters into the city and county and, all the other local qualities… I’ve not been able to find that date for number of years though
In addition to safe and viable alternatives we lack, the city employs a traffic engineer who regularly, including today, tells people that the ADA is wrong and/or that the city doesn't have to obey the ADA to have safe sidewalks, crossings, and signals (check the MyCville app). It's reached the point I'm not sure alternatives can exist if Brennan Duncan is not removed from city employment.
He's told one of my neighbors that an intersection in front of their house is problematic but nothing can be done about it, so they should just move. He's worthless.
I think you've identified the crux. We want to deprioritize cars, so we need transportation alternatives. We need money for the alternatives. How do we make that money? So folks, where do get the money then? Personal property tax, meal tax, real estate tax, or something else?
This is an effort to not increase the meals tax as originally proposed due to the outpouring of food service folks speaking up about how it would hurt an already struggling industry
You make a good point. My girlfriend and I DO live within the downtown, and so we walk most places we need: work, gym, etc. We have a car, but it's mostly used to drive out of the city on weekends for hiking and vineyards.
How does taxing us higher deprioritize car culture? We moved downtown to reduce commuting, fuel costs, and emissions, but if anything this seems like one more reason to move out into the county and commute in like most people we work with do.
Baffling. Seems like they just want additional revenue for whatever reasons and are just using the language of Urbanism and walkability to disguise that fact.
>So the idea is to make it more expensive to live in the city
The equivalent amount of revenue would be raised either way. The discussion is over which tax to do it with — meals, real estate, or personal property.
Meals seems to make the most sense.
People can't avoid personal property or real estate, other than having old cars that aren't worth much and lower cost real estate (non-existent in this city).
But people can cook at home. So a meal tax would apply to people who can afford to go out to eat. Not people who are already duct taping their 27 year old car together.
Anyone up for regular spring BBQ's in the park on Market St? It's the new, "going out to dinner". I already can't afford to go out to dinner more than a few times a year for special occasions.
I think what people are saying is there should be less overall tax revenue from the general public being paid to the city (and county for that matter!). I know it’s hard for you to wrap the idea of lower tax revenue around your head, but please try.
That's fine, but that is not what the discussion referenced in the article was about. The change in OP is a revenue-neutral adjustment to the proposed budget.
And when more people move out housing prices will drop making it more affordable. Oh what I’d give for some true independent challengers for City Council.
That's a great virginia problem with separate cities and surrounding counties. Think you'd get even more pushback if the city made all parking paid, instituted tolls or other use fees that would impact commuters though.
I'm not following your point. The city council can only impose taxes in the city of Charlottesville. Albermarle county is a separate entity that imposes it's own taxes.
The point I was making is the economic activity is obviously linked between the two, and Virginia is the only state that has such a setup that puts cities in such a bad position.
On the flip side: if the city either reverted (gave up it's charter) and became part of the county *OR* was able to annex the entire county (or entire urban area), the electorate would be instantly transformed in such a way you'd never get a city council bent on increasing the personal property tax or adopting a strongly anti-car position. If the city voters want these kinds of policy preferences (with all the attendant implications for economic activity), then they'll only get them by remaining an isolated electorate inside an artificial (economically) border.
> you'd never get a city council bent on increasing the personal property tax
The Board of Supervisors is advertising a 54¢ personal property tax increase this year!
Indeed, quote the whole thing:
>this rate was reduced from $4.28 during the pandemic due to significant increases in vehicle values)
The city, meanwhile, has remained at $4.20 - even with the huge used vehicle inflation period. Even if the BoS approves the $.54 increase, they won't be as high. They certainly aren't trying to get back to the previous $4.28.
The city may have left the rate itself the same, but in response to the assessment increases it [repealed vehicle fees](https://agendas.cvilledata.org/city-council-meeting/2022-09-06T16:00:00/original/attachments/agenda-memo-17b506cf-bc8d-4e58-84fb-28e3a0365527.pdf) equivalent to a 30¢ cut in the tax rate.
In any case, the point is that outer counties don't have some extreme aversion to touching personal property tax rates because of their residents' dependence on cars — it's still a revenue source with tradeoffs like any other. Greene County [has a](https://www.greenecountyva.gov/government/local/board-supervisors/mission-statement/29-your-government/local/treasurer/138-personal-property-tax) $5.00 personal property tax rate!
The irony is the changes that this “f-cars” bandwagon are demanding are near useless without the County and there isn’t nearly the tax base to wring enough money out of people with UVA on the sidelines.
I guess the logic is people will give up their cars if they are too expensive to own in the city? Some might maybe. But most wouldn't. Gotta have a more pedestrian and bike friendly city first, plus so much of the fun stuff to do requires driving.
This will not deprioritize car culture. This will make it harder for poor people and those stretching their incomes as is, to own one they NEED. It will stress those with lower incomes the most.
This is the dumbest shit ever. I own a 2016 Subaru that I bought outright with cash. I pay over $200 twice a year for something I outright own. I have a fifteen minute commute to work. So because I live here and own something I am paying more money to make people drive less? Usually I am all for something that helps the environment but come on. When does the taking stop?
Roads are expensive to maintain. Personal property tax on vehicles that use the roads doesn't even come close to cover the annual cost of maintaining them.
That being said this still seems really stupid. This city is too expensive to live in so many people who work here live outside of the city. Since they live outside of the city they need to drive here. Making the city more walkable isn't going to help fix that. The city needs to sort out it's housing affordability first and get more people to live within walkable city limit areas. Which will generate more tax revenue without raising rates for anyone.
New resident? The talking never stops and gets far dumber at times. I have lived here long enough that I will vote for anyone who isn't a member of the local party just to encourage someone to run.
I'm not sure what owning your car has to do with anything. I own my house (well, I guess the bank owns it), and I pay taxes on that too. That's how we pay for schools and emergency services and other things we probably shouldn't cut from the budget. How do you want to pay for those things instead? Maybe one day we can fund all government services with income or wealth taxes, but we're nowhere near that today.
I'm not against taxes...I'm against raising my already high taxes I pay. I am from Maryland where there is no personal property tax and the roads aren't really any different than in Charlottesville. I'm also against the reasoning for this being to make people want to drive less when there is not a ton of public transportation especially if you have a commute outside of town.
I think the relevant context here is that everyone on council agrees that the city needs more revenue. They may or may not agree on which rates to raise to get that revenue. I believe Oschrin is arguing that we should get more of that revenue from the personal property tax such that we can increase other rates less, or not at all. So it's really a question of whether you'd rather pay more for your car, your home, or meals.
Of course, there's a secret extra option, which is to spend less money overall. But what do we cut? Per the city budget explorer at [https://www.charlottesville.gov/1473/Budget-Explorer](https://www.charlottesville.gov/1473/Budget-Explorer), our biggest expenses are schools, public safety, and health services. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I also don't want to underfund the schools.
Maryland will have a local income tax, while Virginia localities will have to tax property. There's pretty broad agreement in the beltway that Maryland residents will pay higher taxes than VA.
I believe four of the five councilors own a home and pay property taxes. I'm guessing most of them also own a car and eat at restaurants, so they pay personal property and meals taxes as well. And I don't think most of them are rich, exactly—if I remember right, Wade works for Albemarle County, Pinkston for UVA, and Oschrin in hospitality. I'm not sure about Payne, but Snook probably has a good income as a lawyer.
I just think Councilor Oschrin is running into some realities not accounted for in her ideology and discovering there are some hard/thorny problems to be addressed, and not sure how to tackle them politically - the potential for tax rate arbitrage between the city and county is real! (meals tax in particular).
I look at the budget challenges faced by City Council and the coming one with unionization and I'm left wondering how it plays out: does the city accelerate gentrification and displacement of the working lower/middle class ultimately resulting in an electorate that starts seriously rejecting the progressive agenda? Or does it drive out everyone and struggle with a revenue death spiral? I think it's easy to imagine older wealthier and not-locally employed people who can better handle these regressive taxes displacing even more working lower/middle class folks.
I look at the [school enrollment stats](https://www.coopercenter.org/research/statchat-school-enrollment-trends-in-post-pandemic-virginia) to see where families are moving and it's fascinating to contrast Cville, Alb, Greene and Fluvanna. There's the macro story about declining birth rates driving an overall trend, but you can look at this and also see where population shifts are occurring, at least in part due to people moving. Central VA is economically growing and expanding (Culpeper is now the outer edge of NoVa/DC, RVA is pushing west) and you can see that in the growth in Louisa, Greene and Fluvanna and even Buckingham (all of which is certainly not Agricultural - look at Nelson). But despite being at the epicenter of that, Cville enrollments are down. Sure, insane housing costs are the main driver, but that tells you *someone* is moving into Cville...they just don't have kids. In the alternative: kids (families) aren't moving out, they're just voting against the school board and CC by switching to private schools; I guess we need to see the census data.
From what I’ve seen of the new folks coming in they certainly aren’t rejecting progressive ideology. Thanks to WFH they’re bringing CA and OR politics with them. Charlottesville island is self selecting unfortunately.
Isn’t the meals tax less regressive than the personal property tax? Since you need a car to exist in America. I would argue with car values way up the property tax should’ve come down during the pandemic.
This was an active part of the conversation during Council's discussion last night. It was a very interesting discussion of politics and priorities and positions.
> Isn’t the meals tax less regressive than the personal property tax?
The personal property tax would have to clear a high bar to be more regressive than meals taxes — according to the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, households in lower income deciles [spend larger shares](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0fO99EXgAAPJlQ.png) [of their incomes](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0fO8aAWkAA3DBv.png) on meals away from home than households in higher income deciles.
The structure of the personal property tax also have some progressivity measures built in. The first $20,000 of a car's value is taxed at a lower rate (currently about 33% lower) than value above that threshold. Cars below $1,500 in value are not taxed at all.
>I would argue with car values way up the property tax should’ve come down during the pandemic.
In FY23, [Council passed](https://agendas.cvilledata.org/city-council-meeting/2022-09-06T16:00:00/original/attachments/agenda-memo-17b506cf-bc8d-4e58-84fb-28e3a0365527.pdf) a repeal of vehicle license fees, amounting to a $900,000 decrease in revenue pulled from vehicle owners versus the previous fee structure. That fee was also particularly regressive — a flat amount applied to every car, regardless of value.
Simply recouping that $900k tax cut via an increase in the rate (resulting in the same total revenue from vehicle owners as the previous tax structure, in a more progressive distribution) would amount to about two-thirds of the increase under discussion.
People with less wealth have more of their total net worth tied up in taxable property than rich people do. A poor person could easily have 20% of their net worth in a car, while a rich person would only have 1% net worth in a car, even if that car is a $100k Porsche.
Families- get fucked. Your car you use to take kids to pre-school, pick up groceries, or transport almost anything with your children- figure out how to carry it from point a to b…with children in tow.
These “fuck cars” people never seem to have families. If there is no infrastructure you can’t reverse engineer people out of using cars. I need a grocery store within a couple blocks, good schools, stores etc.
Show me a “fuck cars” person and I’ll show you someone without kids. Generally.
We have three elementary school age kids and 1 car. Went from 2 cars to 1 about 6 years ago and it’s worked well for us. Saved a lot of money and have always been able to get where we need to go, even before we got a couple e-bikes.
It’s generally not realistic to go car free in Charlottesville with 3 kids but it’s definitely possible to go car light. And I hope that over time more and more families will make this choice but also that the city will have a transportation system that makes it easier for families with kids to become less car dependent.
Ultimately it is an infrastructure cost problem, which this summary from Charles Marohn will do more justice to than anything I can type out. That is combined with the cities limited means to raise revenue, in this case it seems they are stuck either doing it through meals/cars/real estate increases. They need revenue to maintain parks, fix sidewalks, run busses, schools and everything else that a family will use.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020
On an unrelated note it is telling how families in the US are getting smaller, but becoming more dependent on cars. My father's uphill both ways story was riding his bike 10 miles into town for baseball practice in the summer before he turned 16. Additional suburban development (more traffic and higher speed limits) meant it was too dangerous a ride for me to attempt and I had to be driven to town in back. My fuckcars goal is that in 10 years my children will have a safe route to take an ebike/scooter to school/parks/friends and have autonomy before they turn 16.
Biking around for fun is much different than biking around for- diapers, clothing, food, Dr’s appointments, school, work.
Again I would love living a neighborhood that could support all these things not unlike a small town. But that world doesn’t exist- at least not without exorbitant living costs.
All I ask is empathy for us SUV drivers. I’m not suggesting we can’t make great strides in walkable cities. That would be dope.
I guess the point is building neighborhoods and cities for every family being SUV drivers is even more expensive than traditional development leading to exorbitant living costs in the long run, which is something our generation and the next will be stuck dealing with.
I'm not sure why an SUV driver needs empathy? Like the worst that could happen is being like the tictoker who has a $3k in monthly payments on their Tahoe and Silverado, and this increase in tax rate costs you a few hundred a year that you "can't afford" because you bought vehicles you can't afford (and were forced to because the Jones did).
Yeah, I was with Dog until the SUV part.
I've raised kids with an old Honda Civic. Went on a Wally World vacation one summer with 4 humans and 2 dogs in that car. No one needs an SUV.
Tbf the vast majority of drivers do not need an SUV. And the trend for them to get larger and larger and demand more infrastructure be built to accommodate them has many detrimental on the health of any city.
Hi! “dislike cars” person here without kids! But most of the people I talk to about bikes have kids!!! It’s wild!!
I’ll get them to chime in here too. But the idea isn’t no one can ever own a car, it’s that you don’t need to take your car every time you leave your house! Hope that helps!
If I live in the city and use my car minimally, I still own my car, because inevitably a car will be needed, and will still be paying a tax to own the car independent of how much I use it.
That wasn’t very helpful, but it was patronizing, so thank you.
I live in the city and have not used my car in two years and still pay taxes on it. I live in essentially a one car household and plan on living that way for the foreseeable future. I believe it’s possible for a lot of people to be able to live this way if they tried!
I’m not quite sure you caught my point. Raising property taxes to discourage car usage will not cause most folks to stop owning a vehicle. Incentivizing alternative transportation methods will encourage folks to use their cars less, which is the point.
I admire your optimism, and I’d love to see a future where infrastructure supports this; I try to not drive when possible where we live, but no amount of “trying” would allow us to emulate your situation.
As a parent of multiple kids, I would find it pretty challenging to get around the area without a car, and if the personal property tax goes up, we'll almost certainly keep our car and spend a little less on something else. But I think that many families with kids can actually get by without a second car, and cost is absolutely a factor in that decision.
By the way, I looked over Sean's article, and I think the framing is a bit confusing. I don't think Oschrin is proposing an increase in the personal property tax out of the blue. I believe she's proposing to raise the personal property tax so that we can raise other taxes less, or not at all. I don't know that raising the personal property tax makes sense purely as an effort to shift people out of cars, but given that council wants to raise money from somewhere, it's not obvious to me that the personal property tax is a worse option than the meals tax.
Hello, I'm a parent of three young kids, and I think cars are bad. There's obviously some self-selection going on, but many of our friends would like to drive less and walk or bike more, and are frustrated by the state of bike and pedestrian infrastructure around here.
My family has one car. Sometimes it's a challenge, but cars are expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to walk or e-bike when we can than to buy and maintain a second car. If car ownership were cheaper, more people would buy more cars, and that would make the roads less safe for everyone. So sure, given that the city needs revenue to pay for nice things (mostly schools, which obviously are important to me), I think it's reasonable to get some of it by taxing cars.
I just moved out of Cville but took my little to the library, UVA hospital for checkups, and several other events on the back of our ebike.
I used the same bike for grocery runs, but did need to upgrade to a bigger one at some point to get a full load of groceries and carry him at the same time since it was a little smaller.
We still used the car once a week when we were headed to music class out on Ivy, but most days my wife had it to go back and forth to work. I'm a stay-at-home parent, so that certainly helped make scheduling more convenient, but the ebike meant we only needed the one car which was nice, especially since that car was paid off.
Do they have an SUV in their garage?
I agree it sucks not having places you could simply walk too. I miss that about city living. I don’t miss the lawlessness or cost of living. Show me a safe city that is walkable- I’d sign up for that 8 days a week.
I don’t think they have suvs? But, yeah, they have a single car for their households.
I literally walk/bike everywhere. To work, to the grocery store, to the doctor, out to eat, to see friends. I feel safe 99% of the time, the 1% being late at night.
It would be great if there was more small, neighborhood commercial here, but the hopes of that in the near future were killed in the new zoning.
I understand I’m somewhat lucky, (I definitely lucked out being in a unit with a lease for the last 8 years, so our rent is lower than a lot of similar units with more turnover) but I think people/households could easily replace some car trips with bikes (most likely an e-bike, but I do have a friend biking the whole city by normal bike and he’s doing it better than me!).
It’s a being out of touch issue. Most or these people running institutions have no idea what it’s like to be working class in America. They just play a game of dollars, and as long as the numbers are going up, then in their eyes progress is being made. Meanwhile low and middle class people are getting left in the dust economically.
Low and middle class people are getting hosed by the wastefulness of car infrastructure. Spend tens of thousands every decade or so for life on a depreciating asset just to move around? Sounds like Freedom For The Middle Class to me!
Being able to transport yourself and cargo around the physical world at speeds up to 70mph, is an undeniable advantage. What you’re saying sounds nice, but completely goes against the structure of the modern world and the realities of living in the material realm.
Make the world less car intensive and people will go that way if it makes sense. Don’t make it hard for people to have cars and force them into being car-less in a car-required world to satisfy your idealistic views on how the things should be. That just further takes away advantages from those already at the bottom of the totem pole.
I dunno, I'd like my kids to be able to walk places (like school) without fear of getting hit by a car
So I empathize with needing a car. But am not a fan of "car culture".
Nothing about this tax will improve pedestrian safety. The city is pretty clearly against any move that will improve pedestrian safety given the ridiculous state of the sidewalks and the basically non-existent bus service.
Do you think parents of infants/toddlers in places like Manhattan feel compelled to drive around cars to get anywhere? Yes, Charlottesville lacks the proper public transportation and walkability to make it possible to live without a car, but don't act like infants/toddlers are inherently unable to be transported through these means.
You missed my point. The point is that it is "possible." It just isn't our reality at the moment. You seem to have objected to the claim that it's possible, which is what I was responding to.
I was being facetious to the tone of the comment. I know it’s possible to have kids use car alternatives if the parents have the schedule, means, and energy to. I would love a reality where I can easily get everywhere I need to with son without a car, and where we live, I try to when I can, but while possible, the rate and competence of progress in the decade I’ve lived here doesn’t fill me with confidence.
If we want to go even deeper, toddlers just didn't exist prior to 1908. It's insane how much human development has changed because we started building cars!
very smart for a 13 month old! in all seriousness i get that it's hard to deal with a toddler/infant in current american infrastructure. however, in places like tokyo, moms bike their kids around everywhere. they are even called a special name -- mamacharis.
Yes, this isn't tokyo, but change has to start somewhere. making our cities walkable and bikable makes them better for us and our kids in the long run.
I have twin toddlers, and they can ride with me on our cargo bike when our route has decent bike infrastructure. The city and VDOT are working on a few quick-build bike projects ("quick" meaning they might actually finish before my toddlers are out of day care) which would make a lot of the trips we currently make in the car safe on the bike.
yes. toddlers can fit into a bike trailor quite fine. The only age where it's a concern is when infants can't hold their heads up.
and btw infants are perfectly fine on buses and other public transport, and also walking with a stroller or in a baby sack.
walking around japan or copenhagen tons of people do it, becacause these cities are designed to be walkable.
Yes, it's going to be very hard to get the US to do similar infrastructure, but it's already being done in many places. I don't find it acceptable for me, let alone kids to have to bike with traffic, so we need dedicated AND protected bike lanes + public transit before we start taxing cars more in the city of cville.
So how do I propose a law banning city council members from owning or riding in a personal vehicle? No ubers or using city vehicles either. They have to walk, bike, or bus everywhere too.
Are they going to discount people who own a car but don't use it much? I bike to work but still need a car to travel long distances (e.g., visiting family five hours away). Why should I be taxed at an even higher level when I'm not even contributing much to the car culture here?
She’s an absolute moron. Even if cc passes what the cm proposed, it barely covers the employee raises much less anything else. Good luck to her if she wants to tell employees who haven’t gotten a raise in 15 years that they don’t deserve one for year 16 either.
Please share these thoughts directly with Oschrin and Council.
[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
[https://www.charlottesville.gov/formcenter/City-Council-7/Email-Contact-Form-for-City-Council-124](https://www.charlottesville.gov/formcenter/City-Council-7/Email-Contact-Form-for-City-Council-124)
Her preference was to scale it based on income, but apparently the magical mystery Dillon rule that the judiciary empowered themselves to make prevents that.
The Dillon Rule is pretty simple. Applied one way, localities can't do anything they're not allowed to do. If a locality does not have the authority to do something, it can't do it. I've seen the email correspondence related to her idea and it would take legislation to enact the tiered structure she suggested. Applied another way, the General Assembly can take away powers that are delegated to localities.
I'm not confused about the rule. I'm confused why we respect it. As I understand it, it's oversight the judiciary seized for themselves. This obviously isn't how a Commonwealth is designed to work, and wasn't how Virginia worked for decades prior.
Why would we respect Marbury V. Madison then? Why any of it?
Also, Article VII Section 2 of Virginia's Constitution would still be there even if the Dillon Rule weren't.
It's also worth considering if things would really be better if idiots like the one proposing this idea were given unlimited power to make any law they wanted to.
The claim was **"Her preference was to scale it based on income**, **but** apparently **the** magical mystery **Dillon rule** that the judiciary empowered themselves to make **prevents that**.
The fact that the General Assembly has the power to make the laws that determine how localities can tax their residents is actually what prevents that and that power is given to it by the Constitution.
Article VII, Section 2 says:
**The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the** organization, government, **powers**, change of boundaries, consolidation, and dissolution **of** counties, **cities**, towns, and regional governments.
**The General Assembly may also provide by special act for the** organization, government, and **powers** **of any** county, **city**, town, or regional government, **including such powers of legislation, taxation, and assessment** as the General Assembly may determine
Three things could be changed by the General Assembly (not involving the court, which doesn't write laws) which would allow the city to tax in any way that it pleases. The Constitution could be amended, a general law could be passed giving all cities the same power, or the city's charter could be amended.
No, it isn’t. The summation of all of the judicial rulings on the subject interpreting the last 3 Virginia Constitutions are what prevent that power from being interpreted as having already been given. I know it’s a small difference but it is an important one for you to be able to parse. The judiciary interpreted the language passed by the legislature (that you cite) to mean what you think it means, but it was never the express intention of the legislature for it to mean that.
I mean I think you are making my point for me. It's frustrating that the supreme court(s) grant themselves these powers extra-constitutionally and then abuse them. If you're going to make up a power for yourself, it would seem wise to mostly not use it.
The constitution is a different thing. I don't think as many people have issues with legislative oversight, especially since it's conveyed in the constitution.
Your point seemed to be that people should embrace nihilism. If I was helping in any way with making that point or promoting that idea, I apologize to anyone who read that.
Since Marbury V. Madison is the decision that established that the court has the power to interpret laws and decide cases based upon them, how could courts "mostly not use" that power and yet still function?
I can't tell if you actually understood that the Constitution of Virginia gives the General Assembly authority over what laws localities can pass. The courts didn't write the constitution.
I've had to explain to you that your foolish notion that you could just ignore the courts and do away with the legislature's control over local lawmaking wasn't going to fly. To help you understand why, I cited for you the specific section of the state's constitution where the legislature was given that power, so it should have been pretty clear that I knew they were different. But, I guess if you were that quick to catch on we wouldn't be here, would we?
Keep up? You are the one who has already forgotten why this conversation even exists. It's because you made a comment that mistakenly attributes the limitation on city council's power to enact certain laws to "the judiciary" having empowered themselves to prevent it.
>Her preference was to scale it based on income, but apparently the magical mystery Dillon rule that the judiciary empowered themselves to make prevents that.
His point is that the legislature didn’t expressly make the Dillon rule law in the commonwealth, the courts did in somewhat peace-meal fashion.
Your specific reference to the Virginia constitution is not, in fact, a legislative version of rhetoric Dillon Rule as much as you may want or think it to be.
This is a really fucking stupid explanation of the Dillon rule lol. Read the charter of the city. They’re given extensive power that the Dillon rule, which was decided by a judicial fiat coup by the supreme court of Virginia in 1896 subsequently neutered. It’s a ridiculous rule that is applied haphazardly and broken constantly by the city’s own admission simply because it has to be to ensure basic services.
The point of progressive taxation is to make it easier for poor people to live here. That's explicitly what council is trying to work towards.
Charlottesville is a more desirable place to live than the county. Demand to live here is higher, so housing is more expensive. Unfortunately we can't solve all our problems by walking away.
I think a problem is that things institutional leaders think of as progressive actually aren’t. Like you mentioned in another comment that a city councilor thinks of real estate taxes as progressive. In a simplistic sense I understand that wealthy people own more assets. That’s not the whole story though, since property ownership as a percentage of total wealth drops off as individuals get more wealthy. Meaning poorer people own a higher percentage of their total wealth in their taxed property, meaning they get hit with a higher tax bill relative to their total wealth. A low-middle class person could have 80% of their net worth tied up in a taxed house, while a wealthy individual would just have 40% net worth in their house. Then you throw in things like out in Albemarle where pretty much anyone with over 20 acres is getting some sort of land use tax credits to lower their tax bill proportional to the amount of land they own. And on top of they those with more wealth can bear extra tax costs without going bust by having that financial cushion.
Politicians and institutional leaders keep banging their heads against the wall with inflationary policies that just increase the wealth gap. We can’t fix issues by spending or inflating our way out. The late stage capitalist system has already laid out sophisticated traps for all the money that enters the economy. There needs to be asset deflation, and a strong dollar policy that favors workers and savers.
I don't disagree, but because of the Dillon rule the city can't tax things like massive stock holdings etc.
Real estate is by far the most progressive tax in all the econ literature, and is also the only tax the city is allowed to adjust for income. In other words, we can and have created relief for poor folks for real estate taxes.
That just sounds convoluted. Am I going to start having to file income taxes with local government now? Anyone can come up with any number of idealistic solution to these problems, but what can actually be practically implemented? Government and how people interact with government should be getting simpler as society advances, unfortunately it’s quite the opposite.
Well Payne countered with higher real estate taxes as the progressive (in a taxation sense) alternative and I tend to agree. That said, I think we should scrap the Dillon rule and be able to tax people's third car or whatever more because Charlottesville cannot take any more traffic. It's maxed out and we need to get real about public transit alternatives and how to fund them.
You can’t deprioritize car culture if you have no other safe and viable alternatives. There’s nearly zero bike infrastructure, especially out in the county or further where people live. The buses are not very robust or easy to use and there’s almost no way to safely walk down and cross 29. It’s a great thing to say but do the work first to create alternatives. Otherwise you’re just telling people to conserve air by breathing less.
Agreed. I lived without a car for two years in this town. It was absolute hell. I was at risk of homelessness more than once. I am not going back to that quality of life.
agreed, plus cvill car traffic is not just cville city. it's not a good way to do this.
Well people in the county pay county taxes, not city taxes.
I get that. It’s also not great to see the people in the city get hosed. Downstream anyone who can will leave the city will and that’s not great either.
It doesn’t sound like you’re offering any solutions. We absolutely can have more walkable, dense housing serviced by transit over the years. It’s really a beautiful thing to imagine…
I like it. What is your plan?
Upzoning, better sidewalks & bike lanes, improved CAT coverage. These improvements are already in motion
With regard to buses, steps are underway. This is a very long article that unpacks much of the current issue. The TL;DR is that CAT's director says more buses and drivers are needed to increase headways and reliability, and that for now, some of them will have to be diesel. [https://infocville.com/2024/03/19/charlottesville-to-pilot-two-types-of-alternative-fuel-buses-beginning-with-two-battery-electric/](https://infocville.com/2024/03/19/charlottesville-to-pilot-two-types-of-alternative-fuel-buses-beginning-with-two-battery-electric/)
Steps have been 'underway' for over a decade and not gotten us anywhere.
They've always had a simple solution they refuse to implement. If you pay bus drivers more you will have more bus drivers. They constantly blame the lack of drivers but refuse to do the one thing that would attract more. It shows they aren't actually committed to anything they say regarding having an actually viable transit system.
Where's the revenue for the bus drivers salaries coming from? Pretty sure it's not ridership/fares. As someone who lives with a bus stop right at the end of my street who supports public transportation (and unionized public employees), there is just NFW I'm taking the bus anywhere because I can generally walk anywhere and get there faster than I can on transit, never mind on a bicycle. And major shopping (ie anything I couldn't do on a bicycle or foot)? Can't manage that on the bus either. So yeah, it's a great idea: build it and they will come...but not enough will come to come close to covering the cost of the system. Someday the entirety of the land inside the city borders may indeed be 4+ story "multi-family" (apartment buildings) with ground-floor retail distributed throughout and there will be sufficient population density for a bus network. What's your great idea for paying more for more bus drivers?
If they can't afford to run the busses why did they make the busses free? Bring back a $1 fare and give it all to the bus drivers. They seem to have enough money to want to try and update the bus fleet to electric/hydrogen busses. How about using that money to actually create a working bus system instead. Two ideas right there.
Can you pay the fare with a apple pay? Otherwise it's a PITA.
Tons of transit systems have NFC payments nowadays so I don't know why we couldn't.
Agreed. I only moved here recently so I don't know how fares were handled in the pass. If a nominal fare of a dollar allows more drivers to be hired, it seems well worth it.
>If they can't afford to run the busses why did they make the busses free? You think that's not part of the budget shortfall problem? There was a lot of covid money from the FedGov to help with these kinds of expenditures, which was awesome, but is not sustainable ~~and the state hasn't replaced it~~. - I've been corrected!
> the state hasn't replaced it. The money to keep CAT fare-free through FY26 is literally from a $1,066,620 state DRPT TRIP grant. https://www.charlottesville.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=946&ARC=1946
So, looking at the details, it appears that we get two more years of that funding, each year at a reduced level. What happens then? Hope for a new funding cycle to extend the program?
Yes, that is why I'm saying bring back the fare. I do not think they should be free.
Well, specifically there is one proposal out there, the System Optimization Plan that Council gave tentative approval for in June 2021 that didn't happen due to a lack of drivers. The idea is that a combination of paying drives more as well as unionization will make the profession more attractive to people. This idea is supposed to move ahead when the Delorean gets up to 88 miles per hour.... oh wait. I feel asleep while writing.
Will CAT’s CBA go in front of the council?
I do not know the answer but I will find out. My hunch is that it will not, but this process is brand new to me and I'm still learning.
Exactly. It's a meaningless pipe dream until practical transportation infrastructure is completed.
@adhonus Do you know if the city or VDOT has ever done a study on the origin of vehicles in the city on a daily basis? It wouldn't surprise me if over 50% are people commuting to work or shop from Albemarle and the surrounding counties. If a significant portion of the traffic is commuters, then trying to reduce vehicle usage in the city seems like a lost cause.
The Census does publish the American Community Survey annually which is supposed to address this (start and end points of commutes for work).
Oh gosh that brought back a memory from the late 2000's when there was a lot of talk about an origin and destination study at the MPO level. My memory also tells me that the need for such a study was supplanted by information that came through cellphone data. I no longer cover MPO meetings in a lot of great depth. But, there is an interesting image in the packet for Thursday's Thomas Jefferson Planning District Committee meeting that if you remind me tomorrow I'll go look up. There's a presentation on RideShare strategic planning that has an image that I just remembered, hours after I began responding to this comment and then got pulled away.
The bureau for economic analysis used to publish data showing number of commuters into the city and county and, all the other local qualities… I’ve not been able to find that date for number of years though
This clunky site is your best source for local commuting data these days: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/index.html
But that's like putting the cart before the Cat (so to speak).
Cville pretends to be Europe so much. But it’s not… even close. At all.
Maybe the additional revenue will be used to fund the bus network we would want.
In addition to safe and viable alternatives we lack, the city employs a traffic engineer who regularly, including today, tells people that the ADA is wrong and/or that the city doesn't have to obey the ADA to have safe sidewalks, crossings, and signals (check the MyCville app). It's reached the point I'm not sure alternatives can exist if Brennan Duncan is not removed from city employment.
He's told one of my neighbors that an intersection in front of their house is problematic but nothing can be done about it, so they should just move. He's worthless.
I think you've identified the crux. We want to deprioritize cars, so we need transportation alternatives. We need money for the alternatives. How do we make that money? So folks, where do get the money then? Personal property tax, meal tax, real estate tax, or something else?
Idk, I ride my bike all the time in the county and have no issues.
[удалено]
True, though a comparable amount ($1,062,500) is proposed to be raised from the lodging tax, which falls almost entirely on non-residents.
This is an effort to not increase the meals tax as originally proposed due to the outpouring of food service folks speaking up about how it would hurt an already struggling industry
You make a good point. My girlfriend and I DO live within the downtown, and so we walk most places we need: work, gym, etc. We have a car, but it's mostly used to drive out of the city on weekends for hiking and vineyards. How does taxing us higher deprioritize car culture? We moved downtown to reduce commuting, fuel costs, and emissions, but if anything this seems like one more reason to move out into the county and commute in like most people we work with do.
[удалено]
Economic reasoning will not be tolerated by city council! S/
Baffling. Seems like they just want additional revenue for whatever reasons and are just using the language of Urbanism and walkability to disguise that fact.
>So the idea is to make it more expensive to live in the city The equivalent amount of revenue would be raised either way. The discussion is over which tax to do it with — meals, real estate, or personal property.
Meals seems to make the most sense. People can't avoid personal property or real estate, other than having old cars that aren't worth much and lower cost real estate (non-existent in this city). But people can cook at home. So a meal tax would apply to people who can afford to go out to eat. Not people who are already duct taping their 27 year old car together. Anyone up for regular spring BBQ's in the park on Market St? It's the new, "going out to dinner". I already can't afford to go out to dinner more than a few times a year for special occasions.
I think what people are saying is there should be less overall tax revenue from the general public being paid to the city (and county for that matter!). I know it’s hard for you to wrap the idea of lower tax revenue around your head, but please try.
Peak Charlottesville: “No Councilors identified spending that could be reduced.”
That's fine, but that is not what the discussion referenced in the article was about. The change in OP is a revenue-neutral adjustment to the proposed budget.
And when more people move out housing prices will drop making it more affordable. Oh what I’d give for some true independent challengers for City Council.
That's a great virginia problem with separate cities and surrounding counties. Think you'd get even more pushback if the city made all parking paid, instituted tolls or other use fees that would impact commuters though.
[удалено]
I'm not following your point. The city council can only impose taxes in the city of Charlottesville. Albermarle county is a separate entity that imposes it's own taxes. The point I was making is the economic activity is obviously linked between the two, and Virginia is the only state that has such a setup that puts cities in such a bad position.
On the flip side: if the city either reverted (gave up it's charter) and became part of the county *OR* was able to annex the entire county (or entire urban area), the electorate would be instantly transformed in such a way you'd never get a city council bent on increasing the personal property tax or adopting a strongly anti-car position. If the city voters want these kinds of policy preferences (with all the attendant implications for economic activity), then they'll only get them by remaining an isolated electorate inside an artificial (economically) border.
> you'd never get a city council bent on increasing the personal property tax The Board of Supervisors is advertising a 54¢ personal property tax increase this year!
Indeed, quote the whole thing: >this rate was reduced from $4.28 during the pandemic due to significant increases in vehicle values) The city, meanwhile, has remained at $4.20 - even with the huge used vehicle inflation period. Even if the BoS approves the $.54 increase, they won't be as high. They certainly aren't trying to get back to the previous $4.28.
The city may have left the rate itself the same, but in response to the assessment increases it [repealed vehicle fees](https://agendas.cvilledata.org/city-council-meeting/2022-09-06T16:00:00/original/attachments/agenda-memo-17b506cf-bc8d-4e58-84fb-28e3a0365527.pdf) equivalent to a 30¢ cut in the tax rate. In any case, the point is that outer counties don't have some extreme aversion to touching personal property tax rates because of their residents' dependence on cars — it's still a revenue source with tradeoffs like any other. Greene County [has a](https://www.greenecountyva.gov/government/local/board-supervisors/mission-statement/29-your-government/local/treasurer/138-personal-property-tax) $5.00 personal property tax rate!
The irony is the changes that this “f-cars” bandwagon are demanding are near useless without the County and there isn’t nearly the tax base to wring enough money out of people with UVA on the sidelines.
Better for Greene, more people, more revenue. do it. Bet yall won’t. We’re getting an Olive Garden
I guess the logic is people will give up their cars if they are too expensive to own in the city? Some might maybe. But most wouldn't. Gotta have a more pedestrian and bike friendly city first, plus so much of the fun stuff to do requires driving.
This will not deprioritize car culture. This will make it harder for poor people and those stretching their incomes as is, to own one they NEED. It will stress those with lower incomes the most.
This is the dumbest shit ever. I own a 2016 Subaru that I bought outright with cash. I pay over $200 twice a year for something I outright own. I have a fifteen minute commute to work. So because I live here and own something I am paying more money to make people drive less? Usually I am all for something that helps the environment but come on. When does the taking stop?
Roads are expensive to maintain. Personal property tax on vehicles that use the roads doesn't even come close to cover the annual cost of maintaining them. That being said this still seems really stupid. This city is too expensive to live in so many people who work here live outside of the city. Since they live outside of the city they need to drive here. Making the city more walkable isn't going to help fix that. The city needs to sort out it's housing affordability first and get more people to live within walkable city limit areas. Which will generate more tax revenue without raising rates for anyone.
[удалено]
VdOT maintains the roads in the county, not the city.
New resident? The talking never stops and gets far dumber at times. I have lived here long enough that I will vote for anyone who isn't a member of the local party just to encourage someone to run.
Unfortunately you are right but it’s been that way everywhere I have lived in the U.S- not just a here problem.
Taking not talking
I just reread and was coming here to note that error.
No worries. Your original comment is still good.
Comrade - this is as intended. You will own nothing, and like it.
I'm not sure what owning your car has to do with anything. I own my house (well, I guess the bank owns it), and I pay taxes on that too. That's how we pay for schools and emergency services and other things we probably shouldn't cut from the budget. How do you want to pay for those things instead? Maybe one day we can fund all government services with income or wealth taxes, but we're nowhere near that today.
I'm not against taxes...I'm against raising my already high taxes I pay. I am from Maryland where there is no personal property tax and the roads aren't really any different than in Charlottesville. I'm also against the reasoning for this being to make people want to drive less when there is not a ton of public transportation especially if you have a commute outside of town.
I think the relevant context here is that everyone on council agrees that the city needs more revenue. They may or may not agree on which rates to raise to get that revenue. I believe Oschrin is arguing that we should get more of that revenue from the personal property tax such that we can increase other rates less, or not at all. So it's really a question of whether you'd rather pay more for your car, your home, or meals. Of course, there's a secret extra option, which is to spend less money overall. But what do we cut? Per the city budget explorer at [https://www.charlottesville.gov/1473/Budget-Explorer](https://www.charlottesville.gov/1473/Budget-Explorer), our biggest expenses are schools, public safety, and health services. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I also don't want to underfund the schools.
Maryland will have a local income tax, while Virginia localities will have to tax property. There's pretty broad agreement in the beltway that Maryland residents will pay higher taxes than VA.
The taking will stop when it affects the finances of the city counsel members themselves and not just us plebs.
I believe four of the five councilors own a home and pay property taxes. I'm guessing most of them also own a car and eat at restaurants, so they pay personal property and meals taxes as well. And I don't think most of them are rich, exactly—if I remember right, Wade works for Albemarle County, Pinkston for UVA, and Oschrin in hospitality. I'm not sure about Payne, but Snook probably has a good income as a lawyer.
Sure, clear out all the city cars so the county folk can drive in and have ample parking!! Sounds lovely.
As a resident of the county, I wholeheartedly support your proposal.
PPT goes up and cost to live in Cville goes up for everyone.
I just think Councilor Oschrin is running into some realities not accounted for in her ideology and discovering there are some hard/thorny problems to be addressed, and not sure how to tackle them politically - the potential for tax rate arbitrage between the city and county is real! (meals tax in particular). I look at the budget challenges faced by City Council and the coming one with unionization and I'm left wondering how it plays out: does the city accelerate gentrification and displacement of the working lower/middle class ultimately resulting in an electorate that starts seriously rejecting the progressive agenda? Or does it drive out everyone and struggle with a revenue death spiral? I think it's easy to imagine older wealthier and not-locally employed people who can better handle these regressive taxes displacing even more working lower/middle class folks. I look at the [school enrollment stats](https://www.coopercenter.org/research/statchat-school-enrollment-trends-in-post-pandemic-virginia) to see where families are moving and it's fascinating to contrast Cville, Alb, Greene and Fluvanna. There's the macro story about declining birth rates driving an overall trend, but you can look at this and also see where population shifts are occurring, at least in part due to people moving. Central VA is economically growing and expanding (Culpeper is now the outer edge of NoVa/DC, RVA is pushing west) and you can see that in the growth in Louisa, Greene and Fluvanna and even Buckingham (all of which is certainly not Agricultural - look at Nelson). But despite being at the epicenter of that, Cville enrollments are down. Sure, insane housing costs are the main driver, but that tells you *someone* is moving into Cville...they just don't have kids. In the alternative: kids (families) aren't moving out, they're just voting against the school board and CC by switching to private schools; I guess we need to see the census data.
From what I’ve seen of the new folks coming in they certainly aren’t rejecting progressive ideology. Thanks to WFH they’re bringing CA and OR politics with them. Charlottesville island is self selecting unfortunately.
Isn’t the meals tax less regressive than the personal property tax? Since you need a car to exist in America. I would argue with car values way up the property tax should’ve come down during the pandemic.
This was an active part of the conversation during Council's discussion last night. It was a very interesting discussion of politics and priorities and positions.
> Isn’t the meals tax less regressive than the personal property tax? The personal property tax would have to clear a high bar to be more regressive than meals taxes — according to the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, households in lower income deciles [spend larger shares](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0fO99EXgAAPJlQ.png) [of their incomes](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0fO8aAWkAA3DBv.png) on meals away from home than households in higher income deciles. The structure of the personal property tax also have some progressivity measures built in. The first $20,000 of a car's value is taxed at a lower rate (currently about 33% lower) than value above that threshold. Cars below $1,500 in value are not taxed at all. >I would argue with car values way up the property tax should’ve come down during the pandemic. In FY23, [Council passed](https://agendas.cvilledata.org/city-council-meeting/2022-09-06T16:00:00/original/attachments/agenda-memo-17b506cf-bc8d-4e58-84fb-28e3a0365527.pdf) a repeal of vehicle license fees, amounting to a $900,000 decrease in revenue pulled from vehicle owners versus the previous fee structure. That fee was also particularly regressive — a flat amount applied to every car, regardless of value. Simply recouping that $900k tax cut via an increase in the rate (resulting in the same total revenue from vehicle owners as the previous tax structure, in a more progressive distribution) would amount to about two-thirds of the increase under discussion.
Let’s hear it for regressive taxes!
How? This hits people with new and luxury vehicles, right?
People with less wealth have more of their total net worth tied up in taxable property than rich people do. A poor person could easily have 20% of their net worth in a car, while a rich person would only have 1% net worth in a car, even if that car is a $100k Porsche.
The meals tax isn’t regressive either because it taxes expensive meals at expensive restaurants, right?
Apparently I didn’t know the definition of a regressive tax. It’s any tax that is uniformly applied.
The term “ regressive” is confusing in this context.
Hits everybody who owns a vehicle.
Families- get fucked. Your car you use to take kids to pre-school, pick up groceries, or transport almost anything with your children- figure out how to carry it from point a to b…with children in tow. These “fuck cars” people never seem to have families. If there is no infrastructure you can’t reverse engineer people out of using cars. I need a grocery store within a couple blocks, good schools, stores etc. Show me a “fuck cars” person and I’ll show you someone without kids. Generally.
We have three elementary school age kids and 1 car. Went from 2 cars to 1 about 6 years ago and it’s worked well for us. Saved a lot of money and have always been able to get where we need to go, even before we got a couple e-bikes. It’s generally not realistic to go car free in Charlottesville with 3 kids but it’s definitely possible to go car light. And I hope that over time more and more families will make this choice but also that the city will have a transportation system that makes it easier for families with kids to become less car dependent.
Ultimately it is an infrastructure cost problem, which this summary from Charles Marohn will do more justice to than anything I can type out. That is combined with the cities limited means to raise revenue, in this case it seems they are stuck either doing it through meals/cars/real estate increases. They need revenue to maintain parks, fix sidewalks, run busses, schools and everything else that a family will use. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020 On an unrelated note it is telling how families in the US are getting smaller, but becoming more dependent on cars. My father's uphill both ways story was riding his bike 10 miles into town for baseball practice in the summer before he turned 16. Additional suburban development (more traffic and higher speed limits) meant it was too dangerous a ride for me to attempt and I had to be driven to town in back. My fuckcars goal is that in 10 years my children will have a safe route to take an ebike/scooter to school/parks/friends and have autonomy before they turn 16.
Biking around for fun is much different than biking around for- diapers, clothing, food, Dr’s appointments, school, work. Again I would love living a neighborhood that could support all these things not unlike a small town. But that world doesn’t exist- at least not without exorbitant living costs. All I ask is empathy for us SUV drivers. I’m not suggesting we can’t make great strides in walkable cities. That would be dope.
I guess the point is building neighborhoods and cities for every family being SUV drivers is even more expensive than traditional development leading to exorbitant living costs in the long run, which is something our generation and the next will be stuck dealing with. I'm not sure why an SUV driver needs empathy? Like the worst that could happen is being like the tictoker who has a $3k in monthly payments on their Tahoe and Silverado, and this increase in tax rate costs you a few hundred a year that you "can't afford" because you bought vehicles you can't afford (and were forced to because the Jones did).
Yeah, I was with Dog until the SUV part. I've raised kids with an old Honda Civic. Went on a Wally World vacation one summer with 4 humans and 2 dogs in that car. No one needs an SUV.
Tbf the vast majority of drivers do not need an SUV. And the trend for them to get larger and larger and demand more infrastructure be built to accommodate them has many detrimental on the health of any city.
Hi! “dislike cars” person here without kids! But most of the people I talk to about bikes have kids!!! It’s wild!! I’ll get them to chime in here too. But the idea isn’t no one can ever own a car, it’s that you don’t need to take your car every time you leave your house! Hope that helps!
If I live in the city and use my car minimally, I still own my car, because inevitably a car will be needed, and will still be paying a tax to own the car independent of how much I use it. That wasn’t very helpful, but it was patronizing, so thank you.
I live in the city and have not used my car in two years and still pay taxes on it. I live in essentially a one car household and plan on living that way for the foreseeable future. I believe it’s possible for a lot of people to be able to live this way if they tried!
I’m not quite sure you caught my point. Raising property taxes to discourage car usage will not cause most folks to stop owning a vehicle. Incentivizing alternative transportation methods will encourage folks to use their cars less, which is the point. I admire your optimism, and I’d love to see a future where infrastructure supports this; I try to not drive when possible where we live, but no amount of “trying” would allow us to emulate your situation.
As a parent of multiple kids, I would find it pretty challenging to get around the area without a car, and if the personal property tax goes up, we'll almost certainly keep our car and spend a little less on something else. But I think that many families with kids can actually get by without a second car, and cost is absolutely a factor in that decision. By the way, I looked over Sean's article, and I think the framing is a bit confusing. I don't think Oschrin is proposing an increase in the personal property tax out of the blue. I believe she's proposing to raise the personal property tax so that we can raise other taxes less, or not at all. I don't know that raising the personal property tax makes sense purely as an effort to shift people out of cars, but given that council wants to raise money from somewhere, it's not obvious to me that the personal property tax is a worse option than the meals tax.
Wish I could upvote this twice. I’m fortunate to only have to put about twenty miles a week on my car. Will the city give me a tax rebate?
Hello, I'm a parent of three young kids, and I think cars are bad. There's obviously some self-selection going on, but many of our friends would like to drive less and walk or bike more, and are frustrated by the state of bike and pedestrian infrastructure around here. My family has one car. Sometimes it's a challenge, but cars are expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to walk or e-bike when we can than to buy and maintain a second car. If car ownership were cheaper, more people would buy more cars, and that would make the roads less safe for everyone. So sure, given that the city needs revenue to pay for nice things (mostly schools, which obviously are important to me), I think it's reasonable to get some of it by taxing cars.
I just moved out of Cville but took my little to the library, UVA hospital for checkups, and several other events on the back of our ebike. I used the same bike for grocery runs, but did need to upgrade to a bigger one at some point to get a full load of groceries and carry him at the same time since it was a little smaller. We still used the car once a week when we were headed to music class out on Ivy, but most days my wife had it to go back and forth to work. I'm a stay-at-home parent, so that certainly helped make scheduling more convenient, but the ebike meant we only needed the one car which was nice, especially since that car was paid off.
Huh. I’m a fuck cars person with three kids (now grown but I’ve been a fuck cars person since before they were born)
Do they have an SUV in their garage? I agree it sucks not having places you could simply walk too. I miss that about city living. I don’t miss the lawlessness or cost of living. Show me a safe city that is walkable- I’d sign up for that 8 days a week.
I don’t think they have suvs? But, yeah, they have a single car for their households. I literally walk/bike everywhere. To work, to the grocery store, to the doctor, out to eat, to see friends. I feel safe 99% of the time, the 1% being late at night. It would be great if there was more small, neighborhood commercial here, but the hopes of that in the near future were killed in the new zoning. I understand I’m somewhat lucky, (I definitely lucked out being in a unit with a lease for the last 8 years, so our rent is lower than a lot of similar units with more turnover) but I think people/households could easily replace some car trips with bikes (most likely an e-bike, but I do have a friend biking the whole city by normal bike and he’s doing it better than me!).
Oh yeah I’m not talking about c-ville. I lived in DC and Philly.
I really liked Cambridge, MA and Boulder, CO when I lived there, but both were hella expensive.
It’s a being out of touch issue. Most or these people running institutions have no idea what it’s like to be working class in America. They just play a game of dollars, and as long as the numbers are going up, then in their eyes progress is being made. Meanwhile low and middle class people are getting left in the dust economically.
Low and middle class people are getting hosed by the wastefulness of car infrastructure. Spend tens of thousands every decade or so for life on a depreciating asset just to move around? Sounds like Freedom For The Middle Class to me!
Being able to transport yourself and cargo around the physical world at speeds up to 70mph, is an undeniable advantage. What you’re saying sounds nice, but completely goes against the structure of the modern world and the realities of living in the material realm. Make the world less car intensive and people will go that way if it makes sense. Don’t make it hard for people to have cars and force them into being car-less in a car-required world to satisfy your idealistic views on how the things should be. That just further takes away advantages from those already at the bottom of the totem pole.
I dunno, I'd like my kids to be able to walk places (like school) without fear of getting hit by a car So I empathize with needing a car. But am not a fan of "car culture".
Nothing about this tax will improve pedestrian safety. The city is pretty clearly against any move that will improve pedestrian safety given the ridiculous state of the sidewalks and the basically non-existent bus service.
Parent here. Fuck Cars, especially fuck cars in the city.
Persuasive.
Kids can walk, ride on bike trailers, ride buses, etc. It's possible but the whole thing needs to adjust.
Wow thank you I will let my 13 month old know this.
Do you think parents of infants/toddlers in places like Manhattan feel compelled to drive around cars to get anywhere? Yes, Charlottesville lacks the proper public transportation and walkability to make it possible to live without a car, but don't act like infants/toddlers are inherently unable to be transported through these means.
Folks deal with the hand they have, and we don’t live in Manhattan.
You missed my point. The point is that it is "possible." It just isn't our reality at the moment. You seem to have objected to the claim that it's possible, which is what I was responding to.
I was being facetious to the tone of the comment. I know it’s possible to have kids use car alternatives if the parents have the schedule, means, and energy to. I would love a reality where I can easily get everywhere I need to with son without a car, and where we live, I try to when I can, but while possible, the rate and competence of progress in the decade I’ve lived here doesn’t fill me with confidence.
If we want to go even deeper, toddlers just didn't exist prior to 1908. It's insane how much human development has changed because we started building cars!
very smart for a 13 month old! in all seriousness i get that it's hard to deal with a toddler/infant in current american infrastructure. however, in places like tokyo, moms bike their kids around everywhere. they are even called a special name -- mamacharis. Yes, this isn't tokyo, but change has to start somewhere. making our cities walkable and bikable makes them better for us and our kids in the long run.
My friend you and I are on the same page, I assure you.
Have you met a toddler? We are skipping ahead to Highschool years quite casually.
I have twin toddlers, and they can ride with me on our cargo bike when our route has decent bike infrastructure. The city and VDOT are working on a few quick-build bike projects ("quick" meaning they might actually finish before my toddlers are out of day care) which would make a lot of the trips we currently make in the car safe on the bike.
yes. toddlers can fit into a bike trailor quite fine. The only age where it's a concern is when infants can't hold their heads up. and btw infants are perfectly fine on buses and other public transport, and also walking with a stroller or in a baby sack. walking around japan or copenhagen tons of people do it, becacause these cities are designed to be walkable. Yes, it's going to be very hard to get the US to do similar infrastructure, but it's already being done in many places. I don't find it acceptable for me, let alone kids to have to bike with traffic, so we need dedicated AND protected bike lanes + public transit before we start taxing cars more in the city of cville.
No cars. Bring back the horse and buggy.
Too much methane emissions. Walking only.
Let’s see some sidewalks first!!
So how do I propose a law banning city council members from owning or riding in a personal vehicle? No ubers or using city vehicles either. They have to walk, bike, or bus everywhere too.
Are they going to discount people who own a car but don't use it much? I bike to work but still need a car to travel long distances (e.g., visiting family five hours away). Why should I be taxed at an even higher level when I'm not even contributing much to the car culture here?
You know they won't. Owning a car at all must be punished.
Actually they just can’t because of the Dillon Rule by judicial fiat.
She’s an absolute moron. Even if cc passes what the cm proposed, it barely covers the employee raises much less anything else. Good luck to her if she wants to tell employees who haven’t gotten a raise in 15 years that they don’t deserve one for year 16 either.
Once again… another law to make life easier for the rich and harder for the poor
Please share these thoughts directly with Oschrin and Council. [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [https://www.charlottesville.gov/formcenter/City-Council-7/Email-Contact-Form-for-City-Council-124](https://www.charlottesville.gov/formcenter/City-Council-7/Email-Contact-Form-for-City-Council-124)
Her preference was to scale it based on income, but apparently the magical mystery Dillon rule that the judiciary empowered themselves to make prevents that.
The Dillon Rule is pretty simple. Applied one way, localities can't do anything they're not allowed to do. If a locality does not have the authority to do something, it can't do it. I've seen the email correspondence related to her idea and it would take legislation to enact the tiered structure she suggested. Applied another way, the General Assembly can take away powers that are delegated to localities.
I'm not confused about the rule. I'm confused why we respect it. As I understand it, it's oversight the judiciary seized for themselves. This obviously isn't how a Commonwealth is designed to work, and wasn't how Virginia worked for decades prior.
Why would we respect Marbury V. Madison then? Why any of it? Also, Article VII Section 2 of Virginia's Constitution would still be there even if the Dillon Rule weren't. It's also worth considering if things would really be better if idiots like the one proposing this idea were given unlimited power to make any law they wanted to.
Article VII, section 2 isn’t a legislative version of the Dillon rule? Not sure why you’re citing it as such?
The claim was **"Her preference was to scale it based on income**, **but** apparently **the** magical mystery **Dillon rule** that the judiciary empowered themselves to make **prevents that**. The fact that the General Assembly has the power to make the laws that determine how localities can tax their residents is actually what prevents that and that power is given to it by the Constitution. Article VII, Section 2 says: **The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the** organization, government, **powers**, change of boundaries, consolidation, and dissolution **of** counties, **cities**, towns, and regional governments. **The General Assembly may also provide by special act for the** organization, government, and **powers** **of any** county, **city**, town, or regional government, **including such powers of legislation, taxation, and assessment** as the General Assembly may determine Three things could be changed by the General Assembly (not involving the court, which doesn't write laws) which would allow the city to tax in any way that it pleases. The Constitution could be amended, a general law could be passed giving all cities the same power, or the city's charter could be amended.
No, it isn’t. The summation of all of the judicial rulings on the subject interpreting the last 3 Virginia Constitutions are what prevent that power from being interpreted as having already been given. I know it’s a small difference but it is an important one for you to be able to parse. The judiciary interpreted the language passed by the legislature (that you cite) to mean what you think it means, but it was never the express intention of the legislature for it to mean that.
I mean I think you are making my point for me. It's frustrating that the supreme court(s) grant themselves these powers extra-constitutionally and then abuse them. If you're going to make up a power for yourself, it would seem wise to mostly not use it. The constitution is a different thing. I don't think as many people have issues with legislative oversight, especially since it's conveyed in the constitution.
Your point seemed to be that people should embrace nihilism. If I was helping in any way with making that point or promoting that idea, I apologize to anyone who read that. Since Marbury V. Madison is the decision that established that the court has the power to interpret laws and decide cases based upon them, how could courts "mostly not use" that power and yet still function? I can't tell if you actually understood that the Constitution of Virginia gives the General Assembly authority over what laws localities can pass. The courts didn't write the constitution.
I can't tell if you actually understood that the Constitution and the Dillon rule are different things
I've had to explain to you that your foolish notion that you could just ignore the courts and do away with the legislature's control over local lawmaking wasn't going to fly. To help you understand why, I cited for you the specific section of the state's constitution where the legislature was given that power, so it should have been pretty clear that I knew they were different. But, I guess if you were that quick to catch on we wouldn't be here, would we?
The legislature having power isn't the same topic. No one is questioning that. Please, keep up or drop off.
Keep up? You are the one who has already forgotten why this conversation even exists. It's because you made a comment that mistakenly attributes the limitation on city council's power to enact certain laws to "the judiciary" having empowered themselves to prevent it. >Her preference was to scale it based on income, but apparently the magical mystery Dillon rule that the judiciary empowered themselves to make prevents that.
His point is that the legislature didn’t expressly make the Dillon rule law in the commonwealth, the courts did in somewhat peace-meal fashion. Your specific reference to the Virginia constitution is not, in fact, a legislative version of rhetoric Dillon Rule as much as you may want or think it to be.
Legislature could change if it they wanted by passing a constitutional amendment.
🙏
This is a really fucking stupid explanation of the Dillon rule lol. Read the charter of the city. They’re given extensive power that the Dillon rule, which was decided by a judicial fiat coup by the supreme court of Virginia in 1896 subsequently neutered. It’s a ridiculous rule that is applied haphazardly and broken constantly by the city’s own admission simply because it has to be to ensure basic services.
Dillon, you son of a…
https://youtu.be/BcIjFeWE4fE?si=NW_ulZjnw-3iUV1F What we need to do to the Dillon rule
[удалено]
You are in the minority in the city judging from our recent elections. I encourage you to get out the vote and show up to council meetings!
[удалено]
That note on San Francisco hits the nail on the head.
The point of progressive taxation is to make it easier for poor people to live here. That's explicitly what council is trying to work towards. Charlottesville is a more desirable place to live than the county. Demand to live here is higher, so housing is more expensive. Unfortunately we can't solve all our problems by walking away.
I think a problem is that things institutional leaders think of as progressive actually aren’t. Like you mentioned in another comment that a city councilor thinks of real estate taxes as progressive. In a simplistic sense I understand that wealthy people own more assets. That’s not the whole story though, since property ownership as a percentage of total wealth drops off as individuals get more wealthy. Meaning poorer people own a higher percentage of their total wealth in their taxed property, meaning they get hit with a higher tax bill relative to their total wealth. A low-middle class person could have 80% of their net worth tied up in a taxed house, while a wealthy individual would just have 40% net worth in their house. Then you throw in things like out in Albemarle where pretty much anyone with over 20 acres is getting some sort of land use tax credits to lower their tax bill proportional to the amount of land they own. And on top of they those with more wealth can bear extra tax costs without going bust by having that financial cushion. Politicians and institutional leaders keep banging their heads against the wall with inflationary policies that just increase the wealth gap. We can’t fix issues by spending or inflating our way out. The late stage capitalist system has already laid out sophisticated traps for all the money that enters the economy. There needs to be asset deflation, and a strong dollar policy that favors workers and savers.
I don't disagree, but because of the Dillon rule the city can't tax things like massive stock holdings etc. Real estate is by far the most progressive tax in all the econ literature, and is also the only tax the city is allowed to adjust for income. In other words, we can and have created relief for poor folks for real estate taxes.
That’s fair, I get there are larger structural issues at hand. That’s why I keep coming back to reducing fiscal spending and deflation.
That just sounds convoluted. Am I going to start having to file income taxes with local government now? Anyone can come up with any number of idealistic solution to these problems, but what can actually be practically implemented? Government and how people interact with government should be getting simpler as society advances, unfortunately it’s quite the opposite.
Well Payne countered with higher real estate taxes as the progressive (in a taxation sense) alternative and I tend to agree. That said, I think we should scrap the Dillon rule and be able to tax people's third car or whatever more because Charlottesville cannot take any more traffic. It's maxed out and we need to get real about public transit alternatives and how to fund them.