At the new Universal Hub, there's a bit of commentary on the link to my earlier post on the proposed Boston commuter tax; here's some of my favorite, from eeka [UPDATE: eeka asked me to link to her UH blog, rather than her personal page, so I changed the link. And she spells her name eeka, not Eeka, so I changed that too.]:
"If you move to the burbs and you work in the city, you should pick somewhere to live that's near the T. This is what we collectivist-minded people do already, without any toll being held over us. Why would you drive in and out of the city every day unless you really couldn't use the T? That's just stupid."
Many people can't afford to live along the T, because our society doesn't distribute wealth the way you collectivist-minded people would like. Thank God. To get the house they want, average-income people sometimes need to live where there's no train. Why penalize them? It seems, um, unfair.
"People who can show an out-of-state ID and license plates could be exempt."
If we do that, we're not only creating incentives to keep people away from Boston, we're creating an incentive for them to move out of state.
"This encourages people to come into Boston on public transportation. I don't think anything should encourage more cars to come into the city. Overuse of cars should be discouraged everywhere by all means."
Well, encouraging people to use mass transit is a good thing, I agree. But who decides what "overuse of cars" is? Is it overuse to go for a random, just-for-fun drive? To drive 25 miles to Walmart when there's a Target two miles away?