Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rail Transit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Rail Transit

    joshuatree, if we should consider the property tax generated by Ala Moana center (and elsewhere along the rail system, I presume), then we should consider using those property taxes to pay for the rail system rather than deriving all locally-generated rail construction funds from the general excise tax, which is the most regressive tax available. Otherwise, considering those property taxes in the context of a discussion on rail transit is meaningless.
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
      joshuatree, if we should consider the property tax generated by Ala Moana center (and elsewhere along the rail system, I presume), then we should consider using those property taxes to pay for the rail system rather than deriving all locally-generated rail construction funds from the general excise tax, which is the most regressive tax available. Otherwise, considering those property taxes in the context of a discussion on rail transit is meaningless.
      It's actually quite meaningful, if the project can influence the value of the property, it is affecting the level of taxes collected. This in turn fills the city coffers. While property taxes can be one way to fund the rail project, property taxes have long been used for many other purposes. So the issue is to find another stream of revenue which the city chose as a GET tax increase. Is it regressive? That's debatable. About 30% of the projected tax collection will come from visitors who have no stake in the project or island. If the state and city can amend the GET tax so that food and medicine are exempted, there would even be less of an argument that it's regressive. Other states have sales tax but usually it's at a higher rate than the 4% before the increase. Others have 0% sales tax but levy a heavy property tax. And ultimately, the influence of property values/property tax by the rail project is just one factor, not the only factor.

      Comment


      • Re: Rail Transit

        TheTrain needs to connect with TheBus. Currently AMC is the biggest bus hub on the whole island.

        I suppose it could be moved, but where would be a better place?

        Comment


        • Re: Rail Transit

          Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
          TheTrain needs to connect with TheBus. Currently AMC is the biggest bus hub on the whole island.

          I suppose it could be moved, but where would be a better place?
          Convention center would be a suitable alternate, with the rail continuing though on the backside up the Ala Wai (Waikiki side), and then cutting over by Ala Wai Elementary to go up University to hit UH.

          Comment


          • Re: Rail Transit

            Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
            It's actually quite meaningful, if the project can influence the value of the property, it is affecting the level of taxes collected. This in turn fills the city coffers. While property taxes can be one way to fund the rail project, property taxes have long been used for many other purposes. So the issue is to find another stream of revenue which the city chose as a GET tax increase. Is it regressive? That's debatable. About 30% of the projected tax collection will come from visitors who have no stake in the project or island. If the state and city can amend the GET tax so that food and medicine are exempted, there would even be less of an argument that it's regressive. Other states have sales tax but usually it's at a higher rate than the 4% before the increase. Others have 0% sales tax but levy a heavy property tax. And ultimately, the influence of property values/property tax by the rail project is just one factor, not the only factor.
            You seem to ignore that a rail line can affect property values both positively AND negatively. A rail system can empty city coffers as easily as fill them (easier actually, since building and maintaining the system will absolutely do so, regardless of ridership or property taxes). A rail system is in no way conceived or considered to be a revenue creating venture for the city. If rail is successful, it will lead to reduced GET income (and increased city expenses), not the reverse. It will result in fewer car purchases/expenditures, less taxi revenue, etc. Not one person is arguing that a rail system will provide positive net revenue and lower our current tax burden - that's why taxes were increased to pay for it.

            30% of GET revenue is paid by tourists? I'd like to see the data.

            Is our GET regressive? That's not debatable. It is. If the GET is amended as you propose, we will not be able to accrue anywhere near the estimated GET contribution for the original 20 mile alignment, which was specifically selected as the ONLY affordable rail option after 'due consideration'.

            Bottom line, you're wrong. Property taxes, as a consideration in the rail discussion, cannot be expected to provide a net positive contribution, even if we disregard the fact that some properties will be removed from the tax lists when they're purchased for rail system use.
            Last edited by salmoned; December 9, 2008, 02:01 PM.
            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

            Comment


            • Re: Rail Transit

              Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
              Convention center would be a suitable alternate
              Maybe. The high-level concept isn't bad, but I don't know what it would take to make it into a viable bus hub. I don't remember any side long enough to do the job and traffic in that immediate area is rather congested. Much more so then AMC. Right now AMC is doing a very good job of being a bus hub.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                You seem to ignore that a rail line can affect property values both positively AND negatively. A rail system can empty city coffers as easily as fill them (easier actually, since building and maintaining the system will absolutely do so, regardless of ridership or property taxes). A rail system is in no way conceived or considered to be a revenue creating venture for the city. If rail is successful, it will lead to reduced GET income (and increased city expenses), not the reverse. It will result in fewer car purchases/expenditures, less taxi revenue, etc. Not one person is arguing that a rail system will provide positive net revenue and lower our current tax burden - that's why taxes were increased to pay for it.

                30% of GET revenue is paid by tourists? I'd like to see the data.

                Is our GET regressive? That's not debatable. It is. If the GET is amended as you propose, we will not be able to accrue anywhere near the estimated GET contribution for the original 20 mile alignment, which was specifically selected as the ONLY affordable rail option after 'due consideration'.

                Bottom line, you're wrong. Property taxes, as a consideration in the rail discussion, cannot be expected to provide a net positive contribution, even if we disregard the fact that some properties will be removed from the tax lists when they're purchased for rail system use.
                This conversation sprung from the question of why AMC should have a station. It's obvious in that case, the effect of rail would be positive for a commercial area. If you want to expand the conversation of how rail will affect property in general, that's great, but don't accuse me of ignoring the positives and negatives. My comments were specific to the AMC situation.

                From your comments, it appears you're ignoring the counter effects offered by rail such as increased transit oriented development in relation to fewer car purchases. Btw, fewer car purchases are already happening without rail, so there goes your theory.

                Yes, 30% of GET is paid by tourists. DEIS, pg 7-7.

                If GET is amended, obviously there will be a need for adjustment. If we keep GET and simply waive food and medicine, perhaps a 5% or 6% tax. If we abolish GET and go to a straight forward sales tax, it may be more like 10%. As I already mentioned earlier, other states charge close to double digit sales taxes or have ultra high property taxes to cover their needs. Others levy heavy car registration fees. I remember paying $300+ dollars for a regular Honda Civic in Cali before they reduced the fees. Our GET being "regressive" is indeed debatable when you account for these differences. And I refer back to 30% of our GET revenue coming from visitors. 30% isn't even coming out of our pockets.




                Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
                Maybe. The high-level concept isn't bad, but I don't know what it would take to make it into a viable bus hub. I don't remember any side long enough to do the job and traffic in that immediate area is rather congested. Much more so then AMC. Right now AMC is doing a very good job of being a bus hub.
                If the convention center was made into a bus hub, I think one would need to perhaps build a deck on the Ala Wai on the back side of the center to serve as the bus depot. Had the convention center and rail been built around the same time, the ground floor should have been made into the depot, much like a Union Station. AMC serves fine as a bus depot but if people feel a shopping center shouldn't get the traffic, the CC should as that would make sense as a meeting place.

                Comment


                • Re: Rail Transit

                  Actually, the conversation originated with this question - "Why are we building and paying for a public transit system to benefit a privately owned shopping center?" (post #940) You took the position that increased property values at Ala Moana would increase city revenues (post #945) and that property values/taxes are a factor in the rail transit discussion (post #947, "And ultimately, the influence of property values/property tax by the rail project is just one factor, not the only factor."). I expanded the property value/tax perspective to include other areas affected by rail to suggest that a rise in Ala Moana property taxes doesn't necessarily imply a rise in net city revenue (post#946) or net city property taxes. So, it appears your comments were not narrowly focused on AMC, as now claimed.

                  It is not MY theory that rail transit will lead to fewer car sales, I'm among those arguing against that 'theory' and against the 'theory' that rail transit will reduce traffic significantly. I'm not a dissenting member of the pro-rail camp, I'm a card-carrying member of the anti-rail camp.

                  You have cited the DEIS, which doesn't provide ANY data, but rather only states that tourist pay 30% of GET revenues. That's not data, that's a conclusion devoid of data.

                  Your contention, "Our GET being "regressive" is indeed debatable when you account for these differences", is unfathomable. Those very 'differences' you mention are what makes those other tax schemes LESS regressive. Your argument goes far to prove our GET IS regressive. If you want to claim 30% of our GET revenue comes out of tourist pockets, you'll have to cite a source of data that can be examined - hearsay doesn't cut it.
                  Last edited by salmoned; December 12, 2008, 11:12 AM.
                  May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rail Transit

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    Actually, the conversation originated with this question - "Why are we building and paying for a public transit system to benefit a privately owned shopping center?" (post #940) You took the position that increased property values at Ala Moana would increase city revenues (post #945) and that property values/taxes are a factor in the rail transit discussion (post #947, "And ultimately, the influence of property values/property tax by the rail project is just one factor, not the only factor."). I expanded the property value/tax perspective to include other areas affected by rail to suggest that a rise in Ala Moana property taxes doesn't necessarily imply a rise in net city revenue (post#946) or net city property taxes. So, it appears your comments were not narrowly focused on AMC, as now claimed.

                    It is not MY theory that rail transit will lead to fewer car sales, I'm among those arguing against that 'theory' and against the 'theory' that rail transit will reduce traffic significantly. I'm not a dissenting member of the pro-rail camp, I'm a card-carrying member of the anti-rail camp.

                    You have cited the DEIS, which doesn't provide ANY data, but rather only states that tourist pay 30% of GET revenues. That's not data, that's a conclusion devoid of data.

                    Your contention, "Our GET being "regressive" is indeed debatable when you account for these differences", is unfathomable. Those very 'differences' you mention are what makes those other tax schemes LESS regressive. Your argument goes far to prove our GET IS regressive. If you want to claim 30% of our GET revenue comes out of tourist pockets, you'll have to cite a source of data that can be examined - hearsay doesn't cut it.
                    Ahh so we have you admitting YOU expanded the scope on property tax/value perspective. It's pretty ridiculous for you to accuse me of ignoring the negatives when that's YOUR scope, not mine.

                    If you feel the DEIS is hearsay, you can take it up with the city. Obviously, it's good enough for the feds to take into consideration. I really don't care what card or camp you're in, all I see is someone arguing just for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter what data or link or reference is given to you. So long as it doesn't agree with you, you'll call it hearsay. Just like several posts back where you called me flat out wrong, where's the data there? Seems like hearsay to me.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      So now you're saying that looking at property value/taxes of Ala Moana Center is a factor in rail development, but looking at property value/taxes of all other properties isn't? I can't fathom your current position. Either the entire sum of property values/taxes are a factor or they aren't. I don't understand how you concluded that only AMC property values/taxes are relevant to rail development, while all others can be disregarded.

                      The DEIS is conjecture based upon conjecture. It is not an unbiased study of facts and data. That it is 'good enough for government work', even the federal government, isn't a glowing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination, since that is among the most derogatory of pejoratives used by government contractors (and government workers themselves), not to mention the rest of us shmoes.
                      Last edited by salmoned; December 16, 2008, 03:58 PM.
                      May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                        So now you're saying that looking at property value/taxes of Ala Moana Center is a factor in rail development, but looking at property value/taxes of all other properties isn't? I can't fathom your current position. Either the entire sum of property values/taxes are a factor or they aren't. I don't understand how you concluded that only AMC property values/taxes are relevant to rail development, while all others can be disregarded.

                        The DEIS is conjecture based upon conjecture. It is not an unbiased study of facts and data. That it is 'good enough for government work', even the federal government, isn't a glowing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination, since that is among the most derogatory of pejoratives used by government contractors (and government workers themselves), not to mention the rest of us shmoes.
                        Sounds like you're going into your circular arguments again. My original scope regarding property value/tax was about the positive aspect with rail. And under your own admission, you enlarged the scope to include the negatives. That's fine and dandy. But it's absolutely absurd for you to accuse me of ignoring the negatives in my original scope which was only about the positives. If you can't understand how you're putting the cart in front of the horse, I can't help you there.

                        So you're saying you went through the entire list of references and you're 100% absolute it's conjecture? Then as I stated before, you're more than welcomed to take it up with the authors of the DEIS. I can easily turn your conjecture argument around and say you haven't shown me anything in terms of data that would debunk the statement that 30% of our taxes collected are from visitors.

                        http://honolulutransit.org/pdfs/end.pdf

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rail Transit

                          Could you delineate the circularity in my reasoning? Just calling it circular, just as reiterating the tourist contribution to GET as 30%, doesn't make it so. If you want to cite data, produce the data. I haven't offered any alternate data because I don't have the data. I merely questioned YOUR source of data, which you haven't been able to produce. MY not having data which refutes your 30% quote in no way validates your repetition of the figure.

                          Now you're saying that you intended to limit the scope of the discussion concerning rail's affects on property values/taxes to only the positive aspects for only Ala Moana Center. If you're happy to reduce your perspective to such a narrow focus, by all means, go ahead. Just don't pretend that that narrow focus is of any moment to the discussion on rail transit, except insofar as the owners of that property might be exerting their political influence to promote the rail project for their own financial gain.
                          Last edited by salmoned; December 17, 2008, 10:40 AM.
                          May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rail Transit

                            Still arguing for the sake of arguing? Source of the 30% by visitors was long given to you. Don't accept it? Question it? That's your perogative, but you're still confused in trying to take it up with me as I did not author the document. I accept it and that's that. Don't expect me to do any of your homework for you. And you don't have any data? Puts you in a losing stance since I at least produced a source. Of course, you're going to go off on "conjectures", "no data", etc etc but that's your issue, not mine.

                            I'm very happy with my original scope. You can choose to go off on more tangents if you want but I'm done with senseless discussion.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rail Transit

                              A nice touch, ending your senseless 'discussion' with a statement that you're done with senseless discussion. You've definitely made your pointless point clear as can be!
                              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                                A nice touch, ending your senseless 'discussion' with a statement that you're done with senseless discussion. You've definitely made your pointless point clear as can be!
                                Ahh, I can see you're still bothered. Let me edit my posting, something you do pretty often, to clarify since you like to twist words.

                                "I'm very happy with my original scope. You can choose to go off on more tangents if you want but I'm done with your senseless discussion."

                                Cheers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X