Jon Mays

The tolls for the seven Bay Area bridges, excluding the Golden Gate Bridge, are currently $7 and slated to go up to $8 in January 2025 as described by Regional Measure 3, approved by 55% of voters in 2018. This measure was ostensibly to pay for transportation improvements.

The pandemic-spurred work-from-home movement, along with efficiency and safety issues on our transit lines is causing our agencies to fret over their financial future. Lo and behold, a new state budget announcement includes $5.1 billion for transportation. Yet, that does not appear to be enough.

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

(11) comments

tarzantom

Jon, I believe the ACLU has been behind the Citizen's Oversight Board all along. They have one purpose - get the taxpayer to pay fees to their attorneys.

Mike Caggiano

I agree to expect infrastructure to carry its own weight is delusional. Parks don't pay for themselves nor do roads and sidewalks and electric grids. There needs to be more realization that the general fund needs to be the source of upkeep for things like airports and water plants etc. especially when we need to green ourselves. Public transport must be subsidized so folks find it cheaper and convenient to not need cars as much. As a recovered New Yorker I found some of their tax ideas better than what we have here. Namely that real estate taxation has notherg to do with value but is indexed to construction costs in 1956 dollars used as a reference point. This was equitable as expensive neighborhoods got taxed the same as poorer ones as it covered services equally utilized. cars got taxed by weight not value. as roads were abused more by heavy vehicles. Of course income was taxed and property once improved also. Fees were imposed and gas was taxed and sales taxes were there as well. "Taxes are the price of civilization" said by someone or another. Google it. We could see how say China manages to pay for all their infrastructure so well. Look to Jorg Aadahl's homeland as well. That should get this crowd humming. Ha ha ha

Unassigned

Mike, You make good and constructive points. My take on this is they just made a deal (driven by the unions who will support Newsom in 24 or 28 when he runs) that doles out princely sums to backstop these systems. My gripe is it will give the unions fuel to go grab that money, which is the cause of great deal of the money need in the first place. I don't mind paying to support these systems, but I do mind paying those incredible salaries and benefits that never seem to stop their greedy upward charge. Rich (can't seem to make a name identify me).

Ray Fowler

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street

If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat

If you get too cold I'll tax the heat

If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

"Taxman," George Harrison, 1966

Dirk van Ulden

So true Ray. First they make us pay for the infrastructure and then tax us to use it. As you mentioned below, we need a tax revolution. the Weiners/Wieners of the world have everything bass awkward. I still maintain he needs a shrink.

Lou

A shrink perhaps....or an exorcist.

Terence Y

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Mays. We all know that increased tolls do nothing to “help” the bridges. Instead, these increases will help pay for increased pensions and benefits as well as subsidizing alternate transportation options that would fail if they operated as normal businesses. If the tolls go high enough, people will begin avoiding the toll-taking side while taking advantage of the free-toll side. Wait. Did I plant the seed for two-way tolls? Sorry folks, especially those that would be hurt most by ever-increasing tolls, but you get the government you voted for. Of course, you can continue to use the toll bridges and when it comes time to pay the toll, claim hardship.

Dirk van Ulden

Jon, it occurs to me that both legislators are from this side of the Bay and their constituents probably do not use the bridges as much. We have not yet heard from East Bay legislators but a North Bay assemblyman has already voiced his opposition. With the zillions of dollars being discharged in the bottomless homeless pit, why not divert some funding and finance public transit? San Francisco alone spends close to $1Billion per year on Homeless Inc. so a fraction could be used to actually help out without having to hit up the taxpayers again.

Ray Fowler

Hello, Jon

Lots to think about in today's column. Thanks.

Forty-five years ago, California voters approved the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation otherwise known as "Prop 13" and also described as a taxpayer revolt. Maybe it's time for another taxpayer revolt.

Unassigned

Jon, I too applaud your comments regarding this most recent absurd edict from Scott Weiner. I can't understand why anyone outside of nutty SF (where he should have stayed) could support this measure. And of course, once these tolls go up they are never going down. Ray is right - we do need another Prop. 13, but this time, it needs to address the spending side, which Prop. 13 did not, and tackle all taxes, not just in the case of Prop. 13, property tax.

Ray Fowler

Thanks for the affirmation. Have a great weekend.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here