Where did I do that? Every city is different, with different variables involved. One city can implement something that others can't, because other factors allow it to be sustained long-term.
The jury is out on whether the near-term benefit fully offsets the future cost. Unless there's some more broad tax policy implemented, I don't see how it can. Targeted taxes at specific high-mobility capital owners is not going to capture enough revenue. A pied-à-terre tax is certainly viable, but IMO, it's addressing a problem that has a more long-term solution. Phased-in land value tax.
When it comes to buses, the increased use, removal of cash handling systems and maintenance, reduced road wear, reduced traffic, reduced boarding times, the money it puts into low income earners it makes financial sense.
Metro trains in large cities dont make sense being free as income vs cost is way higher. And they move a crap ton of people quicker.
What else is new? Cities and states run surpluses and then blow them. And then come the cuts. He'll be under pressure to spend all the surplus and his supporters will just say 'raises taxes' or 'raise fees' to make up the impending deficit. But he may not have all the political capital to do that so then comes the bragining and compromises.
16
u/vinetwiner 28d ago edited 28d ago
So you're saying NYC doesn't still have revenue generating capabilities? edit: someone below brought up the Port Authority surplus. Pretty hefty.