joe cipale

Well Gregg,

What is your take on the enforceability if this piece of toilet paper
emanating from the Oregon House?

Joe C.

On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 15:08 -0700, G Magnus wrote:
> Just fyi
>
> 801.305 “Highway.” (1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street,
> thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other
> structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended
> for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a
> matter of right.
>
>
> (2) For the purpose of enforcing traffic offenses contained in
> the Oregon Vehicle Code, except for ORS 810.230, “highway” includes
> premises open to the public that are owned by a homeowners association
> and whose boundaries are contained within a service district
> established on or before July 1, 2002, under ORS 451.410 to 451.610.
> [1983 c.338 §51; 2007 c.561 §1]
>
>
>
> A highway is any public street that traffic laws can be enforced.
>
> Gregg
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:05:46 -0700
> To: mountainbikepros@msn.com; obra@list.obra.org
> From: andys@fseee.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
>
> HB 3008 requires registration only for bicycles ridden on state
> highways. Bikes ridden in towns on city-owned roads would not need to
> be licensed, nor would mountain bikes ridden only off-road. However,
> many roads that appear to be city-owned are, in fact, state highways.
> On this basis alone the bill is unworkable.
>
> At 01:59 PM 3/11/2009, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:
> 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?
>
> ________________________________________________
> Andy Stahl, Executive Director
> Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics
> P.O. Box 11615
> Eugene, OR 97440
> (541) 484-2692, 484-3004(FAX)
> http://www.fseee.org
> Note my new email address: andys@fseee.org
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Find
> out more.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Rick Johnson

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

  --  Thomas Jefferson

Rick Johnson

Bend, Oregon

Mike and Grace McCabe wrote:

My take on this bill is that there is probably a low likelihood that the

bill will pass since, primarily, it is not economically feasible, i.e.,

it will likely cost more to administer the program than the income that

is generated. One could argue that other bills have passed that are not

economically viable as well, but there has been significant opposition

to this legislative concept before. As others in OBRA land have done,

please direct your positive energy toward your legislator. Also

recognize that the vast majority, upwards to 90%, of the bills

introduced to the legislature are from "meaningful" individuals or

special interest groups and are destined for the recycle bin. 

Mike McCabe

-----Original Message-----

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On

Behalf Of Joe Cipale

Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:29 AM

To: Michael O'Hair

Cc: obra@list.obra.org

Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)

The more I read about what the Oregon Legislature submits/considers as

'Serious Legislation', the more convinced I am that they are clueless

imbeciles that would be better off stuffed off the coast on some

uninhabited island where the only people they can legislate over is

themselves. Although I seriosuly doubt they can even do that.

_______________________________________________

OBRA mailing list

obra@list.obra.org

http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________

OBRA mailing list

obra@list.obra.org

http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

  

Mike and Grace McCabe

My take on this bill is that there is probably a low likelihood that the
bill will pass since, primarily, it is not economically feasible, i.e.,
it will likely cost more to administer the program than the income that
is generated. One could argue that other bills have passed that are not
economically viable as well, but there has been significant opposition
to this legislative concept before. As others in OBRA land have done,
please direct your positive energy toward your legislator. Also
recognize that the vast majority, upwards to 90%, of the bills
introduced to the legislature are from "meaningful" individuals or
special interest groups and are destined for the recycle bin.

Mike McCabe

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Cipale
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:29 AM
To: Michael O'Hair
Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)

The more I read about what the Oregon Legislature submits/considers as
'Serious Legislation', the more convinced I am that they are clueless
imbeciles that would be better off stuffed off the coast on some
uninhabited island where the only people they can legislate over is
themselves. Although I seriosuly doubt they can even do that.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

G Magnus

Just fyi

801.305 “Highway.” (1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing traffic offenses contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, except for ORS 810.230, “highway” includes premises open to the public that are owned by a homeowners association and whose boundaries are contained within a service district established on or before July 1, 2002, under ORS 451.410 to 451.610. [1983 c.338 §51; 2007 c.561 §1]

A highway is any public street that traffic laws can be enforced.

Gregg

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:05:46 -0700
To: mountainbikepros@msn.com; obra@list.obra.org
From: andys@fseee.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)

HB 3008 requires registration only for bicycles ridden on state highways. Bikes ridden in towns on city-owned roads would not need to be licensed, nor would mountain bikes ridden only off-road. However, many roads that appear to be city-owned are, in fact, state highways. On this basis alone the bill is unworkable.

At 01:59 PM 3/11/2009, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:

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?

________________________________________________
Andy Stahl, Executive Director
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics
P.O. Box 11615
Eugene, OR 97440
(541) 484-2692, 484-3004(FAX)
http://www.fseee.org
Note my new email address: andys@fseee.org
________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009

Jay Rideout

Now there's a pet peeve...

--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Michael O'Hair wrote:

> From: Michael O'Hair
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 9:19 AM
> As far as road damage is concerned, how about a serious
> tax/fee for studded snow tires? I was walking yesterday and
> a huge 4WD SUV went by with brand new studded tires.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Rideout"
>
> > Quote "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."
> >
> > That part is simple... just raise the fuel tax. Big
> heavy vehicles pay more and fuel efficient vehicles pay
> less.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Joe Cipale

The more I read about what the Oregon Legislature submits/considers as 'Serious Legislation', the more convinced I am that they are clueless imbeciles that would be better off stuffed off the coast on some uninhabited island where the only people they can legislate over is themselves. Although I seriosuly doubt they can even do that.

Michael O'Hair

As far as road damage is concerned, how about a serious tax/fee for studded
snow tires? I was walking yesterday and a huge 4WD SUV went by with brand
new studded tires.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Rideout"
> Quote "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."
>
> That part is simple... just raise the fuel tax. Big heavy vehicles pay
> more and fuel efficient vehicles pay less.
>

Jay Rideout

Quote "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."

That part is simple... just raise the fuel tax. Big heavy vehicles pay more and fuel efficient vehicles pay less.

and... concerning a bicycle license fees, maybe purchasing a bicycle lane pass would be a better definition of a user fee.
Jay

--- On Wed, 3/11/09, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:

> From: Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
> To: andys@fseee.org, "obra@list.obra.org"
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:59 PM
> 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 Live™: Life without walls.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009_______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Michael O'Hair

Yet more questions.

Given that the bill doesn't apply to bicycles owned by minors (under 18), what is the status of bicycles purchased by parents for their children? The bike was purhased by an adult who is the de facto owner. Does the minor have to be present at the time of purchase or in some way recorded as the owner of record? Maybe photo ID?

What guarantee do we have that the tax money will be spent on "road improvents" in the area where the taxed bike is ridden? E.g., If a bicycle is purchased in Malheur county, will the tax proceeds be used in Malheur County? ( Note: this is a shameless ploy to start inter-agency squabbling over distribution of funds.)

If the bicycle is purchased with a Visa card, does the financial institution that issued the card get the tax sticker/stamp?

For the lawyers in the group: Could a state mandate for license stickers applied to a bicycle be attacked under a variant of the illegal search and seizure concept? E.g., forcing someone to attach a sticker to their pristine Eddy Merckx, thereby decreasing its value. ( Yes, another can of legal worms.)

The last question is this: How many of you would accept a reasonable ($10?) fee to be applied to your driver's license as a "bicycle endorsement?" ( I'm sure this will bring up such Orwellian things such as bicycle proficiency testing.) The money raised would be used for bike lanes and such, of course. (Note that OBRA and other such organizations would be a good source for "proficiency testers.")

Brady Brady

Just throwing this out there...

$27 per bike per year is the same that cars pay... and more that motorcycles pay.

Saying that the money will go to fund cycling lanes and other bike-specific facilities, etc. reeks of "separate but equal". We all know what a stellar idea that was.

This bill is bad in many ways, and I will not register even ONE of our 10 bikes should it pass.

But, the way I see it, any of you who do elect to pay $27 per bike per year, should the bill pass, would be buying yourself FULL rights on ALL roads at ALL times. There won't be a need for bike lanes... take the lane everywhere you please... and regardless of any bull**** that bureaucrats, cops, or whoever may throw at you, it will not change the fact that you'll be paying as much as any car for that right.

Brady

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Andy Stahl
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)

HB 3008 requires registration only for bicycles ridden on state highways. Bikes ridden in towns on city-owned roads would not need to be licensed, nor would mountain bikes ridden only off-road. However, many roads that appear to be city-owned are, in fact, state highways. On this basis alone the bill is unworkable.

At 01:59 PM 3/11/2009, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:

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?

________________________________________________
Andy Stahl, Executive Director
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics
P.O. Box 11615
Eugene, OR 97440
(541) 484-2692, 484-3004(FAX)
http://www.fseee.org
Note my new email address: andys@fseee.org
________________________________________________

Andy Stahl

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

Andy Stahl

HB 3008 requires registration only for bicycles ridden on
state highways.  Bikes ridden in towns on city-owned roads would not
need to be licensed, nor would mountain bikes ridden only off-road. 
However, many roads that appear to be city-owned are, in fact, state
highways.  On this basis alone the bill is unworkable.


At 01:59 PM 3/11/2009, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:

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?

________________________________________________

Andy Stahl, Executive Director

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

P.O. Box 11615

Eugene, OR  97440

(541) 484-2692, 484-3004(FAX)

http://www.fseee.org

Note my new email address:  andys@fseee.org 

________________________________________________

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 Live™: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009

Michael O'Hair

Don't forget the bottom line: The state needs money. Politicians are looking for "painless" sources of revenue. Note: "Painless" means minimal threat of being turned out of office. I really doubt that the funds gathered from proposed bicycle tax will end up being put to use for bike lanes and such. As soon as a "crisis" comes along, the money will be spent on whatever project rolls the most logs

A highly biased opinion.

Andy Stahl

Randy,


The status quo gas tax also penalizes rural Oregon, i.e., those who
consume more gas pay more tax.  I, too, live in rural Oregon where I
serve on a rural school board (Crow-Applegate-Lorane) that, among other
costs, has one of the longest school bus routes in western
Oregon.


The issue of how Oregon pays for highway/road maintenance should be
separate from how Oregon pays for bicycle-related transportation
infrastructure.  Bicycles contribute zero to road maintenance
expenses.  However, bicycle infrastructure is costly to build and
does decay, although unlike roads, its decay is independent of use. 
That is, bike paths fall apart from tree roots, weather, flooding, and
the like -- not from the wear-and-tear of bicycle tires.


Best regards,


Andy




At 12:53 PM 3/11/2009, you wrote:

I am in DC at the national bike
summit and there will be a big increase in funding bike transpo.  As
far this last e mail

Below is a VERY bad
idea

It is not fair to rural town

60% of the people in Oakridge have around a 100 mile round trip every day
for work because there are no jobs in Oakridge   plus there are
many things we have drive to Eugene to pay

Many people in rural Oregon are low income this would really hurt. I
realize in the city you bike everywhere it is NOT that way in rural
Oregon

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. 

A " clean tea" bill is proposed to adress this below and would
set a side 10% of cap funds for bikes. Oberstar is pushing this

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)a

Take and please remember not everyone lives in a big. 
We need solutions that work for everyone

Take care




No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1995 - Release Date:
03/11/09 08:28:00

________________________________________________

Andy Stahl, Executive Director

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

P.O. Box 11615

Eugene, OR  97440

(541) 484-2692, 484-3004(FAX)

http://www.fseee.org

Note my new email address:  andys@fseee.org 

________________________________________________

Randy Dreiling

I am in DC at the national bike summit and there will be a big increase in funding bike transpo. As far this last e mail
Below is a VERY bad idea
It is not fair to rural town
60% of the people in Oakridge have around a 100 mile round trip every day for work because there are no jobs in Oakridge plus there are many things we have drive to Eugene to pay
Many people in rural Oregon are low income this would really hurt. I realize in the city you bike everywhere it is NOT that way in rural Oregon

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.

A " clean tea" bill is proposed to adress this below and would set a side 10% of cap funds for bikes. Oberstar is pushing this
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)a

Take and please remember not everyone lives in a big. We need solutions that work for everyone
Take care

Andy Stahl

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