Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all?
#40
what other proposed solutions people have seen, read, heard, or envisioned

Again: the one-size-doesn't-fit-all definition of "road" as "40-foot pavement on 60-foot easement" is unnecessarily expensive overkill.

I have lived in places where the government uses public tax dollars to maintain unpaved roads, so it's definitely possible. In some cases these unpaved roads were actual city streets, and in the nicest parts of town, where the residents were taxed enough for pavement but chose gravel.

I'm still confused on this point: roads are funded with fuel tax revenue; everyone pays fuel taxes; subdivision roads are "open to the public" despite being "privately owned". The distinction seems both pointless and arbitrary.

Simple answer: 1. County to define a minimal "agricultural access road" standard (say, 10-feet gravel, brush trimming on the shoulders) for these "agricultural" subdivisions. 2. County publishes a price list for upgrades. 3. Subdivisions that want more than graded gravel and occasional brush trimming can pay for however much "road" they want.

Before anyone says "but we can't afford it", show me an accounting of the recent fuel tax increase and explain why "there isn't any money".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - by randomq - 02-15-2018, 10:48 AM
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - by kalakoa - 02-18-2018, 04:34 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)