Skip to comments.
London's traffic tactic piques interest in S.F.
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| June 4, 2005
| Rachel Gordon
Posted on 06/04/2005 12:30:28 AM PDT by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: nickcarraway
London Mayor Ken Livingstone, in San Francisco this week for the United Nations' World Environment Day conference, said congestion charging zones, as they're known in his city, have a proven track record since he introduced them two years ago.He's lying. Transport in London is so thoroughly dismal it was one of the factors that pushed me out of living there altogether.
Red Ken is a certifiable lunatic. Under no circumstances listen to him.
Regards, Ivan
2
posted on
06/04/2005 12:31:33 AM PDT
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: nickcarraway
SF has the worst traffic. The city makes NO sense. There is no grid, no names that mean anything and hills all over. It makes driving in LA look like a breeze. I couldn't wait to get back to driving my big old SUV down Ventura Blvd after a week of SF public transportation.
3
posted on
06/04/2005 12:36:32 AM PDT
by
QueenBee3
("Phone's ringin dude.")
To: nickcarraway
The tax payer have already paid for the right to drive down public streets. The friggin politicians have found another way to get into our wallets.
4
posted on
06/04/2005 12:37:50 AM PDT
by
Americanexpat
(A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
To: Americanexpat
You can say one thing for sure about San Francisco's liberal politicians. They have never met a tax they haven't liked.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
5
posted on
06/04/2005 12:43:36 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: nickcarraway
Somehow I believe the Board of Stupes and Mayor would be exempt from this fee. Just a hunch.
6
posted on
06/04/2005 12:44:57 AM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(Shirtless at the 7-11)
To: nickcarraway
...if you drive a car, Ill tax the street...
TAXMAN!
7
posted on
06/04/2005 12:48:42 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
To: endthematrix
I have a better idea: let's tax liberal politicians for stupid ideas.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
8
posted on
06/04/2005 12:50:11 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: MadIvan
A little more traffic on New Bond street might save me some money next trip. My wife hit Asprey's and lit up the sales staff's smiles while torching my wallet! Put some more traffic there and perhaps I'll have some time to douse the flames in between Tiffany's and Asprey's...
Just kidding. Great city. Lousy mayor. Churchill's War Rooms are a particular favorite.
9
posted on
06/04/2005 12:58:28 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: nickcarraway
Let's rush R&D for nuclear/hydrogen powered personal vehicles and market them in a hurry. That would solve much of the problem.
10
posted on
06/04/2005 1:02:58 AM PDT
by
familyop
("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
To: nickcarraway
When will they start to tax sex?
11
posted on
06/04/2005 1:05:23 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
(" I have a great team that is going to beat George W. Bush" John Kerry -2004)
To: goldstategop
goldstategop wrote:
You can say one thing for sure about San Francisco's liberal politicians. They have never met a tax they haven't liked.
-->Don't forget also "They never met a gun restriction they haven't liked" you can throw that in the pork barrel as well.
12
posted on
06/04/2005 1:05:40 AM PDT
by
1FASTGLOCK45
(FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
To: Dallas59
When will they start to tax sex?Ever heard of alimony, child support--and divorce lawyers' legal fees?
13
posted on
06/04/2005 1:31:34 AM PDT
by
Eärendil
(Epitaph of the SF Bay Area: "They came. They saw. They moved to Concord.")
To: Eärendil
14
posted on
06/04/2005 1:32:26 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
(" I have a great team that is going to beat George W. Bush" John Kerry -2004)
To: goldstategop
We would have more money than God.
BTW, I'm quite sure that the loons in charge there see Livingston as a kindred soul, but is this anywhere near being legal in the US?
After all, they are public roads, and I'm sure they were built with public money.
15
posted on
06/04/2005 1:33:42 AM PDT
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: Eärendil
Yeah, but that's taxation of marriage.
I've heard rumors that there is sex outside of marraige. 8^)
16
posted on
06/04/2005 1:35:23 AM PDT
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: bill1952
Yeah, but that's taxation of marriage.And I've heard rumors that there can be children out of wedlock, which can lead to the imposition of court-ordered child support.
17
posted on
06/04/2005 1:37:53 AM PDT
by
Eärendil
(Epitaph of the SF Bay Area: "They came. They saw. They moved to Concord.")
To: bill1952
And we could call it "the stupid tax."
"Okay, congressman, that will be be 20 bucks, stupid tax." "Never heard of it? 40 bucks."
18
posted on
06/04/2005 1:38:53 AM PDT
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: Eärendil
Still not a tax on sex, but I see your point.
IMO, child support is a very good thing and not any type of tax.
19
posted on
06/04/2005 1:42:22 AM PDT
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: bill1952
IMO, child support is a very good thing and not any type of tax.There are two fundamental problems with the way child support is administered in our society:
- The amount to be paid is based on the income/wealth of the father when he is well to do (a very tax-like arrangement,) but on the needs of the child when he is not (which often requires a father to pay far more than he can afford, and far more than he would have to pay were he married to the mother of his children)
- Fairness requires that the parent able to contribute the greatest amount to a child's needs should be the custodial parent, if willing. But of course, that is not how things usually turn out. Whatever happened to 'no taxation without representation'?
-
20
posted on
06/04/2005 1:51:50 AM PDT
by
Eärendil
(Epitaph of the SF Bay Area: "They came. They saw. They moved to Concord.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson