I take some exception to Mr. Kidd's comments in this morning's paper. As a driver, whose family has two motor vehicles, but who regards his bike as his "go-to" vehicle, I find his reasoning fallacious. It would appear that he is under the impression that all road costs are derived solely from taxes on fuel. This is not so, and for good reason.
In the first place, these are PUBLIC streets, owned by the Crown or the Municipality, and open to ALL, without regard to affluence, race, citizenship, age, or residence - let alone mode of travel. The costs of maintenance have been, always, met out of General Revenue, rather than from specific, tied taxes. This is so for two vital reasons: a) It is a principle of Parliamentary Government that Expenditure shall be only at the vote of the governing body - Parliament, Legislature, or Municipal Council. b) The benefit of Public Roads is for all people, not just that restricted class that drives in motor cars. Otherwise, it would be illegal for my children or grandchildren - or Mr. Kidd's, for that matter - to walk along the side of the roadway (the sidewalk), to and from school. It would also be illegal for an aged relative, still ambulatory but no longer a motorist, to go for such a walk. Or does he wish to impose tolls on sidewalk users?
As for paying, I know that fuel taxes were introduced to raise revenue to IMPROVE public streets - for the benefit of motorists - about 80 years ago. My father and grandfather were involved in this effort in Ontario at that time. But note, please, that the revenues were for the improvement of roads, and principally those outside municipal jurisdiction (rural Highways). If all roads were to be paid for strictly by the users, we would not, in all likelihood, be able to drive from here to Mt. Washington, for example. Or, if we could, it would be a much slower journey, with restrictions on start times. It would also be far more expensive, with costs rising during the winter (when we wish to go there) to pay for clearing - if it be done at all.
As it is, I have not noticed that I pay significantly less property tax because I am a cyclist. I pay the same sales tax as everyone else. I pay the same license fees, and the same insurance premium for my cars. When I do drive the car, and park, I pay the same parking fees. Income taxes? The only reason mine might be lower than others is that I am partly retired, and have moved to a lower income bracket. The point here is that cyclists pay the same taxes as everyone else, and get the same privileges and services from the state as everyone else.
He states that motorists are paying more than their fair share of road costs. How so? As a cyclist, I find that a narrow road works just as well as a six-lane spread of asphalt. I can (and have, for half a century) travel just as quickly on gravel as on pavement. I do not need thousands of dollars-worth of reconstruction annually, because bicycles do not pound ripples in the pavement, as was the case at Finlayson and Blanshard, or Fort St., by the Jubilee Hospital. I do not need acres of land made impervious to rain, just to let my machine stand, so that rain-water immediately flows into the creeks and storm-drains, and creates instant floods. All these are at the demand of motorists, who scarce can move, now, if the road is not smooth as a billiard table.
Don't blame it on me, pal. Look to your own habits and demands, and (please) put a cheque in the mail to City Hall, to pay for your own costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment