"I don't care who people vote for as long as I can pick the candidates" - "Boss" Tweede (a Democrat)
Republican Assemblyman Josh Hoover's latest editorial describes his effort to fund our gas-tax-maintained roads fairly. He's concerned about a proposed mileage tax that would tax the drivers of Electric Vehicles (EVs) who pay no gas tax. Hoover says such a tax should not be charged gas-powered cars, which are already taxed for road maintenance at the pump.
So...those are the candidates: EVs or gas-powered cars. Isn't it unfair if gas-powered cars pay at the pump and then get a mileage tax too? [Outraged citizens shake their fists at the Capitol and mutter curses at big government.]
But what about trucks? Here's from the Government Accountability Office:
"...while a truck axle carrying 18,000 pounds is only 9 times heavier than a 2,000-pound automobile axle, it does 5,000 times more damage [to the road]."
What if drivers of cars, whatever their fuel, are stuck with the road maintenance bill? Shouldn't we tax the trucks much more? But trucks were not a candidate.
In a recent Orangevale meeting, Hoover also said he wanted to audit several state projects, like the Capitol annex and the state's homeless programs, for the sake of "transparency" and "accountability." These are probably worthy audits, with the additional political advantage of allowing him to criticize these as products of a legislature dominated by Democrats when the audits find faults, as they inevitably will.
But does Assemblyman Hoover want to take on a bigger problem and close the loophole in Proposition 13 for commercial properties? No mention of that. Again, it's not a candidate.
Unlike residential properties, which are reassessed at the purchase price when they sell, Prop 13's loophole lets commercial properties avoid tax reassessment as long as no more than 50% of title transfers at one time.
So Michael Dell, of Dell Computers, can buy a Santa Monica Hotel, splitting title between himself, his wife, and a corporation he controls, and the assessment and taxes remain the same even if the purchase price says real estate has gone up a gazillion percent.
Several projects Hoover wants to audit are far smaller than the stakes for this tax loophole, too. The Capital Annex costs $1.1 billion, and the state's homeless programs cost roughly $5 billion a year, yet the commercial property loophole means the state loses $12 billion in revenue annually.
Hoover's focus is on (relative) trivia and distraction.
Hoover also wants to ensure transportation money goes to (auto-centric) roads rather than transit and bikes. Here, he has a point since our cities are almost exclusively designed for auto commutes. Pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods, like the ones built before 1950, are the answer. They cut vehicle miles traveled roughly in half. Does Hoover propose that the state mandate such civic design? Nope. Again, not a candidate.
Critics of transit are correct, in this context; transit will never work as long as there aren't enough passengers within walking distance of the stops. Currently, that walk in our region is at least undignified if not impossible.
Providing enough riders for transit in low-density residential neighborhoods requires an occasional four- or eight-plex, and perhaps even some neighborhood commerce within a comfortable walk of the homes. The region most often builds low-density residential sprawl, making viable transit impossible.
In fairness, though, the state now mandates "Complete [pedestrian-friendly] Streets" in all new neighborhoods. Hoover wasn't in the assembly when that vote occurred, but his boss, Kevin Kiley, voted no.
Like many politicians, Assemblyman Hoover is articulate and polite, but he often omits effective public policies as an option. He advocated "transparency," while steering the conversation away from options that might solve the problems he decries. In reality, he's part of the problem, not part of the solution.
