The Chainlink

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/8435830-418/alderman-asks-whe...

 

And Gabe Klein handling it perfectly.

 

And Ron Burke coming off as calling for a crackdown on cyclists (probably taken out of context, but note that Gabe didn't give them anything to take out of context.)

 

(***TCA= "this crap again")

Views: 2523

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I understand the need for the city to increase revenue.

I also understand the impracticality of licensing bikes and enforcing that licensing.

What about a "bike tax" on new bikes either flat fee or something like 1% of the retail price? It wouldn't be popular but would be equitable and not a nagging fee.

There's no tax on new bikes?

Yes, in addition to the already exorbitant sales taxes that we pay in Chicago.

 

(thanks for defining it, I could have been more clear as to what I meant)

M.A.R.K. said:

I think he meant on top of sales tax, like they now do for bottled water.

h' said:
There's no tax on new bikes?
Thanks, I know what he meant.  

M.A.R.K. said:
I think he meant on top of sales tax, like they now do for bottled water.

h' said:
There's no tax on new bikes?
Even though i am not always the most lawful cyclist...I still think they should just enforce the laws already on the books. And ticket the cars/trucks that double park in the bike lanes...that would be nice and generate some money.
Thunder Snow said:

All bikes in Chicago are, by law, ALREADY registered/licensed with the authorities:

"9-120-020- Registration - Permalink

It is hereby made the duty of the owner of every bicycle, before operating or permitting the operation of the same upon any public way within the city, to register said vehicle with the commissioner of police on a form provided for such purpose. Registration may be accomplished by filing the registration record or form, duly filled out, in the office of the commander of the police district in which the bicycle owner resides, or by mailing said form, duly filled out, postage prepaid, to the commissioner of police.

Prior Registration code § 29.1-2; Amend Coun. J. 7-12-90, p. 18634"

We have a similar statute in my town of Evanston, and I'd bet many other towns in the area have the same laws.  I even paid a fifty cent per bike license fee to Evanston, which seems like a reasonable cost.

Okay, so if I want to go on a day trip on my bicycle, I first have to register my bicycle separately in each municipality I may be traveling through. That's stupid. Let's make people driving cars do that first.
Thunder Snow said:
Mike, you're assuming that governmental licensing is about anything other than revenue collection.  My dog needs to be licensed, though its paws do no harm to the sidewalk. A home based web design business still needs a business license to operate, though there is zero infrastructure damage caused by it.  Bicycle licensing would just be about closing budget gaps. 

 

Not to get too far off topic, but there are other reasons why dogs are licensed which have nothing to do with damage to the sidewalk, or even revenue generation. It's not good to have feral dogs running around, or dogs with rabies, or people running puppy mills. Licensing helps to pay for animal control services.

Likewise, home-based businesses are regulated not because of infrastructure damage, but because, for instance, there's a public interest in enforcing zoning laws so that people don't start up big manufacturing operations in residential areas.

Similarly, cars require registration to help offset multiple costs, not just road maintenance.

Of course there's purely a revenue generation aspect to all of these regulations as well.  But I don't buy that that's the only reason for them.

Here's a Boston perspective on the same issue.
I think bikes are already contributing less congestion, cleaner air, no damage to the infrastructure, etc., etc., etc.   So that would be my argument against that point. ;)

notoriousDUG said:

Or it could be argued that bikes should contribute something towards the infrastructure that they use...

 

It's not an illogical point.

+1



h' said:

And fortunately for us, Rahm and Gabe get this.

Fran Kondorf said:

Truth.

 -f

Christopher Warland said:

Hmm, reduced congestion, less pollution, reduced wear and tear on infrastructure, lower public health and insurance costs...seems as if cyclists should be subsidized, not taxed. 

 

some valuable comments to this issue on the bikecommuters.com post too!

(http://www.bikecommuters.com/2011/10/28/license-to-bike/)

I propose non-compliance if the aldermen actually pass this abusive new tax.  If we cyclists simply refuse to register what can they do?  They will end up spending more tax dollars trying to enforce this absolutely indefensible new tax than they would have raised by implementing it.  We have been bled and continue to be bled by these lazy criminals in government locally and nationally.  I suggest writing to Alderman Pat Dowelll and letting her know where you personally stand on this plan.  Contact information on her 3rd Ward website.   If the plan is approved I propose a mass demonstration on bicycles at City Hall.  Imagine ten thousand bicyclists downtown.  

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service