Broad-based taxes are the way to fund mass transit
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s congestion pricing proposal for Manhattan is philosophically wrong, wrong on the specifics and politically dangerous. Yet it persists. Part of the reason is that it’s buried in the budget; part is fear of Cuomo. Until Amazon.
Congestion pricing is a way to make sure middle income and poor folks who own cars stay out of Manhattan. There will still be plenty of Uber cars, BMWS and Lincolns. Not so many Chevys and Fords. It is a regressive tax that forces people of moderate incomes to choose between their pocketbooks and access to stores, hospitals, theaters and the bustle of midtown. No authentic progressive should allow for market forces to control access to the greatest city in the world.
Even if you hold your nose on the philosophical questions, the details of the governor’s proposal have something sensationally bad for everyone.
Environmentalists are asked to exempt it from SEQRA, our environmental review law.
Home rule advocates have to vote to allow the state government to control what goes on city streets.
Manhattan residents get charged the tax even when they change parking spots.
Private car drivers pay the full fee, while Uber drivers pay a fraction of that amount.
FDR Drive travelers are exempt, while West Siders pay full fee.
Tolls on existing bridges and tunnels are deductible, even for
Jerseyites, except for suburbanites taking the RFK Bridge, and Staten Islanders on the Verrazano.
There’s no division of monies between the subway system and the commuter rails; all are eligible but no formula is given.
Best of all, the amount of the fee is secret.
How can you vote for this, even if you like regressive taxes? Who wants to be in town the day they implement this mess? And what will voters think?
It’s just another example of political elites developing policies that don’t really hit them.
The goals of congestion pricing are not inherently bad. We can reduce congestion without picking on private cars and letting Ubers off the hook. We might even be able to structure fees that were progressive and not a flat tax. We must fund mass transit, but broad-based taxes, not selective flat fees, are the way to do that.
A full-throated debate might actually improve these ideas. But that’s not what’s in store for us. It’s another budget beauty, exempt from legislative amendment.
The Amazon debacle is now behind us. The best lesson we can learn from that is the limits of arbitrary, take it or leave it deals. Who knows what might have occurred if the Amazon deal was treated like any other government initiative with checks and balances and someone other than the governor making decisions? Who knows what will eventually emerge if congestion pricing is fully and thoughtfully considered? Remember the lessons of Amazon.