Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is Federal government involved in NYC parking?
vanity ^ | February 20, 2025 | Linda Martinez

Posted on 02/20/2025 4:47:11 AM PST by eccentric

Please explain to those of us in flyover country, what congestion parking tax is and why Trump and/or the federal government has anything to do with it.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: congestion; nyc; parking; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: T.B. Yoits

Still wrong, you have no right to drive , your mmovement is your person you can takes public transportation or get a cab. Like Code said where is the law you speak of. It doesn’t exist.

Driving is a privilege , don’t think so. Try driving without the state’s permission with a state issued licence enjoy two years in state prison if you do. Ask someone who got stopped for DUI and refused to submit a sample if driving is a right, nope they take that state issued privilege away aautomatically for 180 days then a year if the person was arrested and convicted,but it’s still 6 months even if you beat the case just for the refusal. So yeah no right to drive at all. This also means your restriction of movement is just wrong, I would love to see the USC code for it.


61 posted on 02/20/2025 7:38:01 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath
Just a question - how much money are you losing with the end of "congestion" pricing in New York City? It sounds like you made a bad bet, maybe on real estate in New York City or in a company that thought congestion pricing would give them a competitive advantage.

If we wanted to be British and charge people for driving on streets like they started in London, we'd be British. We're not.

62 posted on 02/20/2025 7:42:36 AM PST by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath

It’s not just driving - it’s also being a passenger.


63 posted on 02/20/2025 7:43:14 AM PST by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

I thought the same thing. Maybe he’s testing people about the real boundaries of the executive. Seems we all agree there’s been too much power (or too much of the wrong power) taken up by the executive branch.


64 posted on 02/20/2025 7:44:06 AM PST by microgeek42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

X rights are the most important as they are the true limits set for fedgov.

Both POTUS are wrong on this, potato head didn’t need an EO he should have said if congress wants to stop states from congestion charges pass a law and I will sign it under the supremacy clause. Then the Supremes can chime in if congress had the power in the first place. The tenth is pretty clear what is not enumerated to feds is reserved for the states or the people.


65 posted on 02/20/2025 7:46:27 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath
Only at the state level the fed has no charter or enumerated powers to be building roads, it’s not in the constitution.

That argument played out in the early 1800s. The first National Road was authorized by Congress in 1802 and constructed from 1811 through the 1830s.

That matter was a subject of great dispute in the U.S. government at the time -- for the reasons you have laid out about the limits of federal power.

There's a reason why the "Federalist" view won the day, and the timing of that first federal appropriation for the National Road had everything to do with it. If you look at a map of the original thirteen states and you review the history of the colonies, you'll see two obvious historical and geographical points that informed the founders' views on transportation infrastructure when they drafted the Constitition:

1. Every one of the original thirteen states was located on the Atlantic seaboard.

2. There was already a network of government-owned roads in place in these thirteen states from the time of British colonial rule. These "king's roads" became the "post roads" that are cited in the U.S. Constitution under the enumerated powers of the federal governments.

Most commerce between the original states took place via marine shipping or along these "post roads." If the U.S. never grew beyond these 13 states, nothing ever would have needed to change.

The conversations about building a national road system beyond these original "post roads" began very soon after the Constitution was ratified. With the admission of Vermont (1791), Kentucky (1792) and Tennessee (1796), the U.S. now had sovereign states within its borders that did NOT have direct access to Atlantic ports. There wasn't much urgency in addressing this, however, since these three states were very rural and encompassed lands that had previously been subject to claims among one or more of the original 13 states. So their limitations were well established and understood by everyone at the time.

It was the admission of Ohio into the Union in 1803 that brought the whole question to a head in Congress. Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the U.S. government might have had no authority to construct a new road between states. However, the powers at the time -- including Thomas Jefferson himself, who was very much a champion of state's rights -- recognized that every new state admitted to the Union that lay west of the Appalachian Mountains would have limited ties to the rest of the U.S. unless they could maintain and grow commerce throughout the nation without being subject to the whims of their neighboring states when it came to the construction and maintenance of roadways.

That original National Road was established to run west from Cumberland, Maryland across a route that is now roughly followed by I-70 and Route US-40. It was considered a "no brainer" at the time because without such a road in place, the Northwest Territory -- which included a large region in the interior of North America that later became Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota -- would have closer commercial ties to British Canada than to the rest of the United States.

So there you have the REST of the story ...

66 posted on 02/20/2025 7:46:48 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("Well, maybe I'm a little rough around the edges; inside a little hollow.” -- Tom Petty, “Rebels”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath
You must remember that Trump is a native of New York and spends his summers in New Jersey. The politics of the two states are more to his heart than those of say, Wyoming and Colorado. The congestion pricing is unpopular and especially so in New Jersey, which represents about 36% of the population of the New York City metropolitan area. In 2024, Trump lost New Jersey by six percentage points vs. 14 and 16 in 2016 and 2020, respectively. It was the best GOP Presidential performance since 1992. Trump lost suburban Bergen County, adjacent to Manhattan, by only three percentage points vs, a 16 point loss in 2020.

The governorship races in New Jersey and Virginia, and the New York City mayoral race, occur in the year immediately after the Presidential election. These races are often seen as a referendum on the incumbent President's policies. I suspect Trump is thinking that a good GOP candidate who is at least an economic conservative (cultural conservatism is a hard sell in New Jersey), basically a loyal version of Chris Christie, could win the Garden State governor's office. More than just thumbing his nose at New York Governor Hochul and the corrupt Democratic regimes in the New York City Hall and Albany, this may be why he decided to interfere in the congestion pricing issue.

67 posted on 02/20/2025 7:47:16 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: T.B. Yoits

Loosing money? Not at all. I go to NYC on the regular and the $4 ish per UBER ride is worth the now much less traffic. Same for a hail totally worth it. Every major city should toll the roads and set those to congestion charges too the difference is night and day.

DFW and Houston both have toll lanes that change prices based on traffic levels, lanes built with tax money at that. The Katy freeway lanes can be $12 or more one way at peak times then set the prices to have the flow at 55 mph when it slows the prices go up.

NYC should just refuse fed money for streets by doing so they are no longer behoven to the feds. In reality the feds should not be funding roads at all. Limited government remember that “conservatives” the feds have 8 jobs and roads,healthcare,welfare are all not in that list.


68 posted on 02/20/2025 7:56:36 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath
In reality the feds should not be funding roads at all. Limited government remember that “conservatives” the feds have 8 jobs and roads,healthcare,welfare are all not in that list.

The first roads were "Post Roads", as delivering the mail is explicitly in the Constitution.

69 posted on 02/20/2025 7:59:40 AM PST by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

There was great resistance to national roads in the south whose leaders saw it as spending their tax dollars for northern interests. South had a large system of navigable rivers and with the Louisiana Purchase the port of New Orleans became the center of trade for the interior southern states. Similarly a system of navigable rivers flowed east from the Appalachians to the Atlantic facilitating Southern transport to the Atlantic coast.


70 posted on 02/20/2025 8:00:42 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath

I tend to agree but my point was what if Trump agrees and set this up for Hochul and other Dems to take and win a X Amendment case in SCOTUS, forever putting a crimp on the actions of those who believe in the great expanse of federal power at the expense of the states. 4D Chess.


71 posted on 02/20/2025 8:04:44 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

All valid points, the issue is the pendulum will swing back eventually and we don’t want to set up the feds to have even more power over the states. So short term political gains vs precedent set and when not if the dems have control again you really want them with even more power over the states. Flyover country has no say what NYC does and that’s how it should be. I don’t want California or New York to be able to tell Texas what we can and cannot get our legislature to pass. Because if they could your gun rights are gone. The Texas silencer law is perfect example of the commerce clause being used by fedzilla to over turn a state law that passed.


72 posted on 02/20/2025 8:07:07 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
South had a large system of navigable rivers and with the Louisiana Purchase the port of New Orleans became the center of trade for the interior southern states.

This was exactly why Congress deemed a national road system to be a matter of necessity for the country, and later became one of the causes of the Civil War that doesn't get much attention.

There was no way in hell the U.S. government was ever going to allow a scenario where a loose confederation of sovereign states allowed state governments to control access to the entire Mississippi River system. Check out a map of North America to see how large this watershed is.

Interestingly, evidence of this mindset prevails even to this day. The Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with the maintenance and upkeep of the locks and dams along most of our internal navigable rivers (the Erie Canal is a rare exception, as it was constructed within New York's borders for the purpose of keeping it under state jurisdiction). One of the absolutely non-negotiable terms of that federal jurisdiction of these waterways is that they must always be open to every user -- commercial and recreational vessels alike -- at no charge.

73 posted on 02/20/2025 8:07:23 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("Well, maybe I'm a little rough around the edges; inside a little hollow.” -- Tom Petty, “Rebels”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

That sentiment still exists today.. People have said that Virginia shouldn’t spend money to upgrade I-81 because too many vehicles from other states use that road.

Of course, this is the same Virginia that has no problem taking Federal $$$ for roads rather than spend state dollars for them.


74 posted on 02/20/2025 8:11:15 AM PST by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath

It is weird how you throw in age on so many topics where it doesn’t fit, like this one, it seems directed at freerepublic and its members and doesn’t make sense.


75 posted on 02/20/2025 8:12:28 AM PST by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

As a Gen X’r he’s probably been called a boomer by someone younger...


76 posted on 02/20/2025 8:14:13 AM PST by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: HYPOCRACY

Bravo.

Most functionally illiterate people would be ashamed, embarrassed to stand out in public.


77 posted on 02/20/2025 8:22:30 AM PST by normbal (normbal. somewhere in socialist occupied America ‘tween MD and TN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Well it is going to fed district court, and I would hope they rule in NYS favor. Then the choice is appeal it to the Supremes or let the 2nd district court stand. NYS also is still collecting the toll until said Court says they cannot. States are not subject to EO’s more should they be EO are for federal level executive branch states are sovereign. It’s not a good look to get on socials and declare yourself King we don’t do kings in the USA. There must be limits to executive branch even with our guy in it because he won’t be there forever and the other side will win eventually. States need to be free to handle their affairs if NJ is pissed who cares they can choose to not do business with NYC ha good luck with that. But the choice is theirs to make not some person in DC. This country desperately needs to undo all the damage that 1865 and reconstruction did. We are supposed to be a Republic of 50 sovereign states with a limited federal government to handle the common defense, Navy,borders and treaties. The people at the state level can better represent and govern than 5XX half a continent away. I trust Abbot signing what my legislature passes not what California and NY and their kabal of senators want to force on us half a continent away.


78 posted on 02/20/2025 8:24:26 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: brianl703

I would never be confused as a boomer, I look 30s because I take care of my body and work out. I get the wait you were born when all the time from millennials or GenZ. My wife is late 20s and none of her friends guessed I was about out of university when they were born. I lived in NYC at Uni when my wife was born at that. She being a German American was born in Germany.

I bring generations in as it’s very much a boomer thing admit it to care what a state half a continent away is doing. GenZ could care less what NYC is doing. Same for GenX and millennial. I care because I pay taxes in NYS, do work there and could vote if I changed my residence to Brooklyn where my crash pad is but keep it in Texas so I only pay state income tax when physically present doing work in upstate NYS or NYC itself. I also lived there full time in the 90s


79 posted on 02/20/2025 8:37:57 AM PST by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath
If the pendulum does swing leftward in 2028 and thereafter, the Democrats will have no qualms on imposing green energy policies, restrictions on gun ownership, and suppression of state restrictions on sexual matters. They abused the interstate commerce clause, the purpose of which was to prevent one state to impose tariff barriers on another state or foreign country, and have done so going back to Wilson and FDR. The interstate clause has been used as a "wax nose" for a very long time. What Trump is doing regarding congestion pricing into Manhattan will have no impact on what a future Democratic President does.
80 posted on 02/20/2025 8:41:18 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson