And what about all the NON-property owners who benefit?
Why should a property owner pay $100 to subsidize the other 99 people who also benefit from the roads, they just don't own property.
The socialist idea, to which you seem to subscribe to is the one that property owners and "the rich" should subsidize everyone else.
Those fall into three broad categories. People who utilize public transportation, people who utilize the property of others and people who don't drive or ride in vehicles.
Public transportation is available to all. Its expense should be self funded through use fees or subsidized by the larger community through increased consumption taxes combined with use fees.
Vehicle rental is already taxed through VLF fees and transportation specific, consumption taxes.
The few that don't directly use transportation corridors already pay their fair, community share through their income and consumption tax contributions.
Why should a property owner pay $100 to subsidize the other 99 people who also benefit from the roads, they just don't own property.
The answer is that everyone benefits from improved transportation and all but a very small percentage, outlined above, own property. A significant percent of Californians own more than one taxable, vehicle for private use.
Which brings up a good question about the fairness of property taxes. Should an individual tax payer, who owns more than one vehicle for private use, be forced to pay the same amount of personal property taxes for public, transportation infrastructure as other individuals who own only one vehicle? The multiple vehicle owner can't drive them simultaneously and his use of the tax supported, transportation infrastructure is not necessarily going to increase because he has choices.