Comments on: D.C. City Government Considers “Cash for Close-in Urban Living” http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/08/21/d-c-city-government-considers-%e2%80%9ccash-for-close-in-urban-living%e2%80%9d/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jessica http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/08/21/d-c-city-government-considers-%e2%80%9ccash-for-close-in-urban-living%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-25451 Jessica Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:56:39 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=8451#comment-25451 This is a fantastic idea - Cyndi Lauper called it, money changes everything This is a fantastic idea – Cyndi Lauper called it, money changes everything

]]> By: DJB http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/08/21/d-c-city-government-considers-%e2%80%9ccash-for-close-in-urban-living%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-24701 DJB Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:14:41 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=8451#comment-24701 This sounds promising. One challenge is identifying a stable source of funding to make the program permanent (and expand it nationally). At the risk of sounding like a broken record may I suggest taxing fossil fuels? This would make it a double incentive: you move to avoid the higher expense of commuting and to take advantage of the subsidy. There's no guarantee that living close to transit means people will use it (although it probably makes it more likely that they will, other things equal). Also, it doesn't do much good to move close to your job for a month or something to cash in on a subsidy and then go right back to long-distance commuting. Therefore, it seems like it would be best to pay for the program through a carbon tax and require people to live within a certain radius of their job for some specific amount of time to get any subsidy (or base the amount of subsidy on the duration of residence) and possibly give a higher subsidy for living within that radius AND close to transit. On the other hand, what about people who are living close to work and transit already? Do they get anything? This sounds promising. One challenge is identifying a stable source of funding to make the program permanent (and expand it nationally). At the risk of sounding like a broken record may I suggest taxing fossil fuels? This would make it a double incentive: you move to avoid the higher expense of commuting and to take advantage of the subsidy.

There’s no guarantee that living close to transit means people will use it (although it probably makes it more likely that they will, other things equal). Also, it doesn’t do much good to move close to your job for a month or something to cash in on a subsidy and then go right back to long-distance commuting.

Therefore, it seems like it would be best to pay for the program through a carbon tax and require people to live within a certain radius of their job for some specific amount of time to get any subsidy (or base the amount of subsidy on the duration of residence) and possibly give a higher subsidy for living within that radius AND close to transit.

On the other hand, what about people who are living close to work and transit already? Do they get anything?

]]>