Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team
My question is, would I have to register all 10 bikes in my house hold? My 5 mountain bikes (3 mine and 1 wife and 1 son) Only one of those even sees the pavement (the one I ride to work). The others I drive to the dirt then ride. I guess you could say but I drive my car to where I am going to ride. But I already pay for that. Who do we need to call to make a stink with?
Cliff McCann
Pistis Ministries
Pistis.us
541-659-4104
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:16:14 -0700
To: obra@list.obra.org
From: andys@fseee.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
Dear Representative Holvey,
Three Republicans (Esquivel, Krieger, and Garrard) and one Democrat (Schaufler) have proposed a biannual $54/bicycle license fee in HB 3008. Fee revenue, net of collection costs, would be deposited in a Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund (BTIF) to finance bicycle lanes. The bill's supporters believe that the users of bicycle lanes ought to pay the costs. I expect a companion bill from these legislators requiring a pedestrian license for everyone who walks (toddlers exempted, of course) to pay for sidewalks.
There is no question that Oregon faces tough transportation funding policy choices. Per capita gas consumption is declining modestly as fuel efficiency increases slowly and, more significantly, due to the recession/depression. Some sort of weight/mileage scheme that taxes as a function of miles driven and weight of vehicle (a surrogate for road damage caused) is likely to be the long-term solution for highway funding. In addition, at the federal and/or state level there is likely to be a carbon tax, encouraging high-mileage vehicles. Although a carbon tax is good for the environment, it is unlikely to be a source of transportation infrastructure funding as legislators will choose to spend carbon tax money in other ways (i.e., per capita rebates, green energy investments).
There are 2.9 million adults in Oregon potentially subject to the proposed bicycle license fee (bicycles owned by those under 18 would be exempt from licensing under HB 3008). Let's assume that half own bicycles (I'll bet it's actually higher than that). Annual license revenue would be $78 million, but the bill allows for a one-third collection cost, netting $52 million annually to the BTIF. The existing 1% state highway fund dedicated to bicycle/pedestrian transportation has spent an average of $11.6 million a year since 1990, and not more than $24 million in a single year. Thus HB 3008 would more than quadruple the existing state revenue spent on bicycle infrastructure. Thus, if HB 3008 passes, the legislature would likely repeal the 1% fund enacted in 1971, which may be precisely what HB 3008's sponsors seek through this bill.
HB 3008 is an excellent example of two diametrically opposing views on the purpose of taxes. In one camp are those who believe that tax policy should be used to change behavior, either be rewarding good behavior or by punishing bad behavior (e.g., sin taxes). In the other camp are those who believe that tax policy should ensure that the beneficiaries of government spending pay the freight. (Most tax policies do some of each.) The first camp are called "liberals." The second camp are called "conservatives." By this definition, HB 3008 falls squarely in the conservative camp -- it is based on beneficiary-pays principles and punishes environmentally good behavior by making bicycling more expensive. Like all sales and license taxes, it is also regressive, taxing low-income people at a higher rate than higher-income earners.
Unlike motor vehicle registration fees, which serve multiple purposes (e.g., government regulation, law enforcement, and taxation), HB 3008 seeks only to raise revenue. There are no complementary government regulatory programs benefitted by bicycle licensing and no law enforcment issues at stake, e.g., hit-and-run prosecution (the license of bicycles used in the commission of crimes would not be visible to witnesses). The question for the legislature is whether the bicycling benefits from the revenue raised by HB 3008 are worth the negative incentive to bicycling from taxation. In other words, does it make sense to raise money to build more bicycle infrastructure using a taxing method that is likely to decrease bicycle participation?
Best regards,
Andy Stahl
82787 Jackson-Marlow Road
Eugene, OR 97405
_________________________________________________________________
Windows LiveĀ: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009