The mayor of NYC wants to charge a fee to those who drive below 86th in Manhattan on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. The aim of this "congestion pricing," which apparently had some significant success in London is to reduce congestion and pollution as well as require the costs be paid by those who specifically cause them. The shipping industry, for instance, are up in arms. One can imagine certain groups are specifically burdened, but the costs -- consider the war/occupation in Iraq, if not global warming overall -- continue all the same.
They are in effect just hidden in various respects. Out of sight out of mind might be nice and all (simply put, Iraq doesn't affect many in direct ways ... it is no WWII, rhetoric of the Bushoids aside ... and that's why even now Republicans in Congress refuse to actually do something with real bite to force his hand), but who are we really fooling here but ourselves? The proposal, which I can't say I researched but on some level surely seems sensible (as does higher gas prices to encourage conservation/alternate fuels), probably will raise the costs of some services.
But, again, there is rarely a free lunch. The article linked mentions, for example, FedEx and UPS deliveries. The proposal is to charge trucks $21 and cars $8. How many deliveries do those carriers make daily? I reckon quite a few ... pro rata, what really would be the additional charge? They don't like carry one package on each trip and often we are talking about a lot of intercity driving. A few more dollars shipping costs per order, and I'm talking big orders here, seems sensible. It is like insurance -- a little bit down, and you have the peace of mind of knowing that when you need it, it is there. Or, rather, taking care of yourself, and knowing you won't break down.
I debated this issue with someone who thought the whole thing outrageous, somehow a threat to our rights or something. The idea, roughly speaking, seemed to be that they were taxing travel or something. Uh huh. How exactly is this different from charging tolls and the like? The tolls, however, seem to many proper, honestly probably because of familiarity and some basic idea that they are needed for upkeep or something. (I'm guessing here.) But, like parking tickets that encourage following regulations that also are there to handle congestion and the like, there are other concerns.
She was telling me how someone who works in the city but lives in the suburbs was also upset about a tax charged to those who work in the city. This really annoyed me because it is selfish and clueless. The mentality is that they really aren't getting anything out of the city, not living there after all, so why should they pay a tax? Hello? They WORK there. They commute there. And, they shop/eat there as well. IOW, the city is offering a lot to them, as it is providing to the suburbs generally.
The mentality in fact can lead many urban dwellers to feel used and taken for granted. And, it is fairly common, unfortunately. There are certain structural things, such as how the Congress is set up (favoring red states/underrepresented urban areas), that worsen the situation. Education funding fits here. There is a tendency to fund by district, which doesn't properly address the needs of the population as a whole because some districts are cash poor or have special needs.
This is foolish as well, since we need to address the needs of the population as a whole. Urban unrest and racial difficulties underline the potential "blowback." But, consider how Rudy G. (with cheers from the peanut gallery) responded when Ron Paul
addressed this reality at the second debate. Some rather not thing about it ... thinking it somehow their birthright to take from the community, but not give a just amount back.
I really hope the perils of this selfish policy is seriously touched upon in the '08 elections, some signs there that it will be. Anyway, if you want so positive vibes, check out Laura Flanders' new book on "blue grit."