tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14698828.post5543878840391412016..comments2024-01-31T12:49:08.701-08:00Comments on STL Rising: City SavvyRick Bonaschhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10825477678253483191noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14698828.post-84046012349962209272010-12-16T07:40:53.320-08:002010-12-16T07:40:53.320-08:00funny. my Husband suggested the same thing, except...funny. my Husband suggested the same thing, except mandatory, to be implemented like the traffic light cameras, with charges assessed by the amount of time the visitor actually spends in the City. those using public transit would not be charged.LisaShttp://47thoughts.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14698828.post-33602328337136473822010-11-25T12:30:23.103-08:002010-11-25T12:30:23.103-08:00You have to be kidding!
Big Brother!You have to be kidding!<br /><br />Big Brother!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14698828.post-50193949224134522942010-11-24T09:30:25.539-08:002010-11-24T09:30:25.539-08:00not a bad idea, but wouldn't such a program be...not a bad idea, but wouldn't such a program be automatically voluntary? as in, if you don't want to pay for your use of city amenities, then don't come to the city? the only difference between this and tolls, it seems, would be the voluntary part. however, i doubt that enough people, especially non-metro visitors, would voluntarily take part in the program for it to become a substantial source of revenue. i also don't see how it would be that much different that charging for admission to various targets, e.g. the zoo, the art museum, the science center, etc. though, i suppose it would end up taxing a LOT more targets than if fees were implemented individually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com