I don’t think motorists get anything for their fees of registration.
Why spread the madness to bikes?

1) The proposed $10 fee will most likely not even cover the administrative/cost of goods. There’s no way that this proposal could be a money maker for this cash-starved, fiscally-impaired city/county/state.

2) I’d be very surprised if any money that would be raised if this proposal passed, would actually be earmarked for cycling infrastructure, such as road-lining/street sweeping. It’s been clear that the city is more than willing to grab funds from any source in order to cover it’s deficit. Again, poor money management by the powers that be.

3) This really smacks of double taxation, with no additional benefits. I’m already paying income tax, real estate tax, gas tax, auto registration tax, and a ridiculously high sales tax to this city/county/state. Am I, or any of the other tax payers, going to see any benefit from this proposal, if passed.

4) I’ve got five bikes, am I going to have to license every one of them, even though I can only ride one at any one time? Yes, this same argument can be made for multiple car/RV/etc., but as a non-polluting mode of transportation, do multiple bikes for one owner really deserve to be taxed?

5) How would this be enforced? If someone comes in from out of town to ride for a few days/weeks, as many, many riders do, how would they be treated?

All in all, it seems like a bad idea proposed by yet another short-sighted local politician – one who hasn’t been able to balance a budget, nor make intelligent fiscal decisions.

1) The proposed $10 fee will most likely not even cover the administrative/cost of goods. There’s no way that this proposal could be a money maker for this cash-starved, fiscally-impaired city/county/state.

2) I’d be very surprised if any money that would be raised if this proposal passed, would actually be earmarked for cycling infrastructure, such as road-lining/street sweeping. It’s been clear that the city is more than willing to grab funds from any source in order to cover it’s deficit. Again, poor money management by the powers that be.

3) This really smacks of double taxation, with no additional benefits. I’m already paying income tax, real estate tax, gas tax, auto registration tax, and a ridiculously high sales tax to this city/county/state. Am I, or any of the other tax payers, going to see any benefit from this proposal, if passed.

4) I’ve got five bikes, am I going to have to license every one of them, even though I can only ride one at any one time? Yes, this same argument can be made for multiple car/RV/etc., but as a non-polluting mode of transportation, do multiple bikes for one owner really deserve to be taxed?

5) How would this be enforced? If someone comes in from out of town to ride for a few days/weeks, as many, many riders do, how would they be treated?

All in all, it seems like a bad idea proposed by yet another short-sighted local politician – one who hasn’t been able to balance a budget, nor make intelligent fiscal decisions.

Even for cars, it’s been the tax on fuel that
has been the cash cow. Registration revenue
even at motor vehicle numbers is just a blip.

When we reach parity in number with cars,
then I’ll pay….and when we reach parity in
weight, I’ll pay double.

Even for cars, it’s been the tax on fuel that
has been the cash cow. Registration revenue
even at motor vehicle numbers is just a blip.

When we reach parity in number with cars,
then I’ll pay….and when we reach parity in
weight, I’ll pay double.

“License Requirement”

at:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39002.htm

which reads:

a) A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city of county, unless such bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.
b) Any bicycle not licensed under this division may be additionally regulated or licensed pursuant to local ordinance or may be licensed upon request of the owner.
c) It is illegal for any person to to tamper with, destroy, mutilate or alter any license indicia (marking) or registration form or to remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying marks of a licensing agency’s identifying symbol on any bicycle frame licensed under the provision of this division.

~~~~~~~~~~~

So, even if the City of Tucson had ironclad authority in terms of ARS to impose a fee on bikes, there is still the usual problem: set the fee “too low” and administrative costs are not covered. Set the fee “too high” and some degree of noncompliance results. Impose a high penalty on noncompliance and enforcement resources are diverted to a silly thing when important things such as 3 foot rule may be ignored. Does anyone think the City of Tucson, or any other city government, could get it “just right” especially on such a tiny, make that electron microscopic potential budget item?

‘sides…who, in their right mind, is going to plaster tacky annual stickers on their vintage restoration or their 5k Madone or Tarmac or whatever? At some point, wouldn’t the stickers weigh more than the bike?