The regressive costs of cars for poor drivers isn't really in gas/gas taxes, or those kinds of fees. It's in predatory loans, high insurance premiums, and constant need for repairs.
I might be making up a guy but I feel like a lot of pro-gas tax/congestion pricing people don't really grasp *just how hosed* poor people get for driving & I never seem to see pushes for policies that ALSO make insurance/maintenance/etc more accessible & reliable.
like there's always this push to make driving more miserable and i feel like that just translates to "sit in traffic longer" but people literally lose their livelihoods bc their transportation are being taken from them cuz they cant make a loan payment.
so open forum: would or would you not support programs/policies that make loans/car payments, insurance, maintenance more accessible? under what conditions? why or why not?
I guess another way of asking this is: should what degree should driving remain regressive, if at all?
It's wild that there is an overlapping venn diagram of people who say "we need a global movement of X to defeat/accomplish Y" and also "why are you meddling in another city's politics."
idk i think it's good actually that people hold consistent views & use technology to communicate them from across the country w/ the understanding that there needs to be coordinated efforts & orientation towards the same goal(s) if anything meaningful is gonna change.
absolutely no one on the TL would say "stop meddling" when it comes to highway projects or like free Palestine, but for some reason there's a ~~few topics~~ where protecting personalities is more important than keeping the pressure on.
in nyc, 40% of working adults live with a roommate and 1.5 million people live in overcrowded conditions so I respectfully ask the assemblywoman why "12 floors" is the more important metric here?
been thinking about this, along with learning about history of organizing, successes vs failures, esp peasant municipal councils eg EZLN, and basically "community control" is at best meaningless, at worst just another way to control wealth, UNLESS THERE'S CLEAR ORIENTATION.
just letting any asshole into a room to make like, landuse decisions, is disastrous bc "community control" right now is a hodge podge of land/property owners and busybodies with time and connections.
the only people who's opinion should be given 5 seconds of thought are actually organized groups or their spokespeople who've not only been putting the work in on the ground, but are *oriented* toward a goal.
once again reminding people that in the suburbs, which are basically just home & car showrooms for white people, non-auto-oriented transit is associated with crime, poverty, and brown people, so barely gets funded by the residents who control them.
what's been particularly frustrating about ~the discourse~ over transit/suburbs/exurbs is that otherwise very well-meaning people don't seem to want to do the work of interrogating *why* their suburbs don't have transit and would prefer to simply post through it.