Cities getting creative with Citizen Fees

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
From the New York Times, by David Segal, NYT: Cities turn to fees to fill budget gaps - The New York Times- msnbc.com It's fascinating. A few snippets below...

After her sport utility vehicle sideswiped a van in early February, Shirley Kimel was amazed at how quickly a handful of police officers and firefighters in Winter Haven, Fla., showed up. But a real shock came a week later, when a letter arrived from the city billing her $316 for the cost of responding to the accident.

Last July, Winter Haven became one of a few dozen cities in the country to start charging “accident response fees.” The idea is to shift the expense of tending to and cleaning up crashes directly to at-fault drivers. Either they, or their insurers, are expected to pay.

Such cash-per-crash ordinances tend to infuriate motorists, and they often generate bad press, but a lot of cities are finding them hard to resist. With the economy flailing and budgets strained, state and local governments are being creative about ways to raise money. And the go-to idea is to invent a fee — or simply raise one.

Ohio’s governor has proposed a budget with more than 150 new or increased fees, including a fivefold increase in the cost to renew a livestock license, as well as larger sums to register a car, order a birth certificate or dump trash in a landfill. Other fees take aim at landlords, cigarette sellers and hospitals, to name a few.

Wisconsin’s governor, James E. Doyle, has proposed a charge on slaughterhouses that would be levied on the basis of each animal slaughtered. He also wants to more than triple the application charge for an elk-hunting license to $10, an idea that has raised eyebrows because the elk population in the state is currently too small to allow an actual hunting season.

Washington’s mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, has proposed a “streetlight user fee” of $4.25 a month, to be added to electric bills, that would cover the cost of operating and maintaining the city’s streetlights. New York City recently expanded its anti-idling law to include anyone parked near a school who leaves the engine running for more than a minute. Doing that will cost you $100.

“The most dangerous places on Staten Island are the schools at drop-off and dismissal time, when parents are parked three deep in the road,” says James S. Oddo, a City Council member from Staten Island who voted for the measure. “There is a mentality here that Johnny can’t walk 100 feet, he has to be dropped off right at the front of the school — and frankly that’s why Johnny is as pudgy as he is.”

If past patterns hold, the new wave of fees is just getting started. Gary Wagner, a professor of economics at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, was one author of a study of moving-vehicle and parking tickets in North Carolina, covering a 14-year period. He found a strong correlation between a dip in government revenue and a rise in ticket-writing by the police.

And New Yorkers can expect more days like the one in mid-March, when the police wrote 9,016 driving-while-phoning tickets within 24 hours (holy crap!), roughly 20 times the usual number.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
Now think back to the Thomas Paine video and ask yourself what happened to the tax dollars is paid for them to take care of stuff like this in the first place? This is the same thought process that should go threw ones mind when the topic of tollways comes up.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
There's a lot of interesting stuff in the article, but the one that just kills me is the streetlight user fee. How in the world was the city paying for those before?

They don't need to increase fees, they need to decrease spending.
 

MentalGiant

Seasoned Expediter
Its just getting ridiculously. They raise taxes, then want to add fees for everything that the taxes are suppose to pay for? It does make you wonder what they are doing with the tax money. To many crooked politicians.
 

MentalGiant

Seasoned Expediter
More like too many dependent citizens demanding the government take care of more and more of their ills.

Well, I only see that at the fault of the government. They make all these laws and want us to abide by them, but when it comes down to it, when we need the law to intervene or take care of the situation, they don't have the budget for it.

If we don't call and report when we are involved in a accident, instead of taking care of it ourselves, unless there is someone seriously injured, we could possibly spend jail time for not reporting because the person at fault could of broken the law and the city could of written a ticket for it.

It boils down to money, if they can make money, they are happy, if they have to spend money, they are not happy. But again, this is why we pay taxes. If they are going to start adding fees to everything, then we should not have to pay taxes.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
More like too many dependent citizens demanding the government take care of more and more of their ills.
No doubt it makes you feel better to think so, but the truth seems to be that the pols can't quit spending, but know better than to mention tax increases [and risk their next election?:eek:] Creating new fees and increasing existing ones solves their problem: getting ever MORE money from taxpayers. They correctly assume we won't realize the full extent of the robbery they've perpetrated on us, by charging for services our taxes were meant to pay for already.:mad:
 

MentalGiant

Seasoned Expediter
I've been thinking since the last time posted here. Fine, let them charge fees to the person at fault of what ever services that are needed from the city, county or country. Its been a long time since I was at fault of anything that requires their help. As long as they stop expecting me to pay taxes to them.

But, as my luck goes, I'll need them as soon as things did change. lol
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Someone at fault for an accident should pay the costs. No fault is a ridiculous concept from liberal it's all about the feelings idiots. There would be times when fault couldn't be abolutely determined of course but there should always be an attempt to place responsbility where it belongs. I also believe users should pay for certain things like libraries etc.. Streetlights are an entirely different matter. Leave it to liberal morons to think someone should pay for lighted streets and have no fiscal responsibility for accidents they have caused. :confused: :rolleyes:
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Someone at fault for an accident should pay the costs. No fault is a ridiculous concept from liberal it's all about the feelings idiots. There would be times when fault couldn't be abolutely determined of course but there should always be an attempt to place responsbility where it belongs. I also believe users should pay for certain things like libraries etc.. Streetlights are an entirely different matter. Leave it to liberal morons to think someone should pay for lighted streets and have no fiscal responsibility for accidents they have caused. :confused: :rolleyes:

I get the no fault insurance thing..that makes no sense at all, but wouldn't a true conservative say "I'll buy my own books?" Or a Libertarian say "I'll pay my share of the street light bill?"
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I do buy my own books but were I to desire to use the library I wouldn't object to paying a "fee" of say $10 to get my library card, good for say 3 years. That $10 would more than cover the cost of the card and laminate material and provide several dollars toward running the library. Combine that with a turnstile that takes a quarter when you enter and you've gone a long way toward a pay as you go system rather than a total tax drain. I don't know about that Libertarian guy down the block but I'm already paying my share of the street light bill in my property taxes.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
No doubt it makes you feel better to think so, but the truth seems to be that the pols can't quit spending, but know better than to mention tax increases [and risk their next election?:eek:] Creating new fees and increasing existing ones solves their problem: getting ever MORE money from taxpayers. They correctly assume we won't realize the full extent of the robbery they've perpetrated on us, by charging for services our taxes were meant to pay for already.:mad:

The thing is, Cheri, is that local politicians now have the mentality of DC... give the ppl goodies, and they'll re-elect you. They have no problem paying for this and that program to make sure they have a life long JOB. I'm not even talking about welfare programs, which it seems you think I am. I'm talking about wasteful spending on stuff like Detroit's bussing system, where a couple ppl might use a route that uses 5 busses a day.

Then you have our county which raises its rent at Metro Airport, which forces Northwest to leave for Atlanta. Who picks up the fallout from that? The taxpayer! All because the county says they NEEDED more revenue? Nah. Me thinks the bloated bureaucrats need to shave some of their pet projects.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I want to know what happened to ethics and character in these cities. I can understand Detroit but some of the other cities?

For example, where I used to live my brother-in-law's father is on the city council.

He used to be one of these types who were for fixing problems and ran on such a campaign. Since he has been 'office', he has become one of them - we want more money and doesn't respond to the people's needs. There has been a serious plea for a stop sign on one of the Y intersections in my old neighborhoos which is right by a grade school, and he has been told it is badly needed (the kids speed around one corner at speeds as high as 50 mph) but his excuse during a council meeting is that the city has to do an impact study first then request the county to go out and see how much traffic there is then have someone compile a report before it can go back to the council to see if they can justify the cost of having a crew put one in. Mind you they have in the DPW yard about 200 stop signs and 1000 poles. The sad thing is that his grand daughter walks to school on that very sidewalk where there have been cars driven on who lost control, has to cross the street at that intersection to get to school and has almost been run down last year by some 15 year old kid who stole a car which I would think would be a great incentive to put a stop sign up.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
I want to know what happened to ethics and character in these cities. I can understand Detroit but some of the other cities?

For example, where I used to live my brother-in-law's father is on the city council.

He used to be one of these types who were for fixing problems and ran on such a campaign. Since he has been 'office', he has become one of them - we want more money and doesn't respond to the people's needs. There has been a serious plea for a stop sign on one of the Y intersections in my old neighborhoos which is right by a grade school, and he has been told it is badly needed (the kids speed around one corner at speeds as high as 50 mph) but his excuse during a council meeting is that the city has to do an impact study first then request the county to go out and see how much traffic there is then have someone compile a report before it can go back to the council to see if they can justify the cost of having a crew put one in. Mind you they have in the DPW yard about 200 stop signs and 1000 poles. The sad thing is that his grand daughter walks to school on that very sidewalk where there have been cars driven on who lost control, has to cross the street at that intersection to get to school and has almost been run down last year by some 15 year old kid who stole a car which I would think would be a great incentive to put a stop sign up.

I believe there have been many who ran for public office to make a difference, change things for the better, etc. The problem is once they were elected they ran up against the machine. The machine is fueled by greed. greed springs eternal. As in other endeavors, no man is an island. It's the old clichet': "You're either with us or against us. against us ain't gonna win".

"We've been doin' this so long we ain't people no more. We're machines, machines. No heart but at least we're machines." Eric Moore, Gotta keep a runnin', The Godz, 1978.
 
Last edited:

DougTravels

Not a Member
As far as the No-fault thing. It just makes more sense in the big picture. The courts would be even more swamped with trying to determine the at fault party for each accident. Is it a liberal thing? I'm a little to young to remember when it started, but it seems like the Lawyer Groups (usually considered liberal right?) would be opposed to it. Anyone know who was behind the No-fault laws?
 

inkasnana

Expert Expediter
This information on Michigan no-fault insurance is from WikiAnswers.com: WikiAnswers - What is no-fault insurance?

A note on Michigan "No Fault" Auto Insurance: It had to be sold politically so a lot of effort went into demonizing the legal profession along with those who were either underinsured or non-insured, and when it went into effect in 1973 It featured Mandatory Participation, resulting in a higher margin for the underwriters, which was supposed to (theoretically) lower premiums. A Liability Limitation was also supposed to do the same, but in fact in resulted in the exact opposite: Michigan has the highest auto insurance rates in the country. When the Michigan Insurance Industry lobbied long and hard for "no fault", it sure wasn't for the benefit of the auto owner. Also, the state stepped in to play the citizens advocate role by supposedly acting as a watchdog over the industry, so of course the employment opportunities at the Michigan State Insurance Commission rose significantly. In short, the "no fault" law in Michigan really should have been called The Michigan Public Employee and Auto Insurance Agency Benefit Act.

There is more information on the page explaining no-fault insurance. Basically "No-fault" insurance refers to medical coverage which you are required by state law to carry on your automobile insurance. Michigan just got a little sidetracked when they implemented it.
 
Top