It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: knoxie
Do you think those cameras would be used as surveillance as well? Would that be good or bad?
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
Although tolls could be implemented for whatever reason. If you are going to use the roads often then said roads will need repairing more often, therefore those who use it most often should pay the larger portion for said repairs.
Should government set up tolls for soccer moms walking on the sidewalks to help pay repairs? Everyone pays a portion for taxes collected for infrastructure repair. Commercial traffic will cause more damage to a roadway than Joe Snuffy going to visit his elderly mother a couple times a week.
This is nothing more than a control play from those that consider themselves the betters of the average citizen.
I would propose walking surfaces not made of materials that would need constant maintenance. Our manmade materials have come a long way baby, so let's think long-term money savings and comfort for walking, biking and scootering.
Again, the point is missed. I find it fundamentally wrong for a government to determine a zone for people to live and fine those people if they try leaving that zone too much.
This isn't the f-ing Hunger Games..........yet.
It would depend on the reasoning behind the tolls/fines. Do you know what the reasoning may be?
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?
Not in the least.
In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?
Not in the least.
In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
Then you have the freedom not to live there.
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?
Not in the least.
In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
Then you have the freedom not to live there.
originally posted by: PorkChop96
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: Moon68
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68
It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?
Not in the least.
In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
Then you have the freedom not to live there.
"Pay to live here or GTFO" Sounds like a wonderful society
originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
I have more faith in America than you.
Sorry you've bought into the Nightmare instead of the Dream.
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
Geez , that kind of Reminds me of Industrial Chicken Farms Only with People instead . That is a Bad Idea Doomed to Failure Indeed Unless it was Forced on you ..........
originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Byrd
I think you may be missing the point Professor. Living someplace that has all the amenities one could ask for within 15 minutes is one thing. Being told you MUST live where everything the government thinks you need is within 15 minutes and you'll be fined if you leave the area too much is quite another.
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Byrd
I think you may be missing the point Professor. Living someplace that has all the amenities one could ask for within 15 minutes is one thing. Being told you MUST live where everything the government thinks you need is within 15 minutes and you'll be fined if you leave the area too much is quite another.
You see, that's the problem with ATS in general reading Shocking Headlines and not researching.
The plan isn't for the US or for the globe. It turns out (if you read the original news and then look up the details) it's for ONE AREA IN ENGLAND. Only. Nobody else is considering it.
See for yourself. Original story, mentioning Oxfordshire city plans
If you go to the Oxfordshire City Council site, you will find even more details. The documents in question (associated with the Green Party - can't say much about this since I"m an American) but the gist is that It's to eliminate some existing traffic problems and deal with the influx of an expected 100,000 new homes in the area rather than burying their heads in the sand and looking surprised when the addition of 100,000 people suddenly causes problems with shopping and traffic. Here's the plan, as a PDF download
The howl seems to be over some extracted comments from a set of consultants - they seem to have taken local comments and are amending some of the items.
They want to create corridors and discourage people from other areas from using Oxfordshire as their personal pass-through area (driving through, creating traffic jams that are becoming heavier and more frequent)
It is not, as people seem to think, some sort of national or international movement and it's certainly not proposed in America (as some people seem to think. Nobody's being told they MUST live anywhere.
So the truth is far less sexy -- this is an attention catching headline for a local news item about future development in one specific area of the world (plans that the locals affected by it seem to think are fine) and the construction needed to implement the plan. That's not nearly as interesting as some of the alarming ideas presented here.
originally posted by: Moon68
I get all of that Byrd and am 100% in agreement with you. However, given the control complex many seem to have in elected positions, I could absolutely see something like this being a requirement in the not too distant future.
originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crayzeed
Wow how paranoid can you be?
I am afraid you'll have to show me your source for all of that?
Because the only thing I am aware of is a little fee? And after everything you saved on gas and nerves during the rest of the week every sunday with your mother will be that much sweeter.