[sustran] Re: "I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate."

[Todd Alexander Litman]

I think that this is the type of situation in 
which it is important to separate the message 
from the messenger. Mayor Livginstone is a 
controversial and not very diplomatic person, but 
his basic message is true: it is important to 
avoid privilege-based exemptions to automobile 
user charges. Such exemptions are hidden 
subsidies that weaken public acceptance of such fees.

I am often amazed at the level of emotion 
generated by vehicle fees and fuel prices. The 
price of carrots (a staple in our home) at our 
local store fluctuates by 40% from week to week 
and I never hear protests, but when the price of 
fuel changes by 10% its front-page news.

Yesterday, my Rabbi's wife berated my suggestion 
that they city lift its current policy of not 
charging for on-street parking on Sundays in 
downtown as a way to deal with Sunday parking 
problems and fund city programs. She thinks it is 
burdensome, unfair and harmful to city businesses 
to charge for parking. I told her about the 
positive experience in Pasadena, where parking 
meter revenue improved downtown street 
conditions, leading to major economic 
redevelopment 
(http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf), 
but she refused to believe it. "The money will 
just disappear into the city's black hold," she 
retorted. She and her husband are strongly 
pro-environment and social equity, yet she 
doesn't see the connection between subsidizing 
automobile travel and the various environmental and social problems we face.

This attitude, that there is something 
particularly harmful about automobile user fees 
and that it is morally acceptable for motorists 
to try to avoid road tolls and parking fees, is a 
major barrier to rational transportation policy, 
particularly when we propose a new type of fee. 
Fortunately, vehicle user fees are one area where 
environmentalists and urbanists can build 
coalitions with the business community who 
support market solutions, and I applaud those who 
do (for example, Environmental Defense is working 
with organizations such as the Reason Foundation 
on highway pricing proposals, despite accusations 
that they are "fraternizing with the enemy").

Although I have no objection to equity-based 
discounts for road and parking fees (I think even 
people who are poor and disabled should still pay 
something), I think that the U.S. Ambassador 
deserves strong criticism for his selfish and 
hypocritical attitude which assumes he should be 
exempt from fees that most others pay. I hope the 
British government will fight this issue as long 
as needed to establish a good precedence.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 10:09 AM 4/8/2006, Eric Britton wrote:
>Dear Jonathan and dear Sustran friends,
>
>Oops and ouch! Now I remember why I have always 
>made a point of avoiding this kind of 
>polemic.  I remember when Jonathon and Todd were 
>going at it con brillo a bit back, and all I 
>could think at the time is that both are doing 
>such important work, and while a certain amount 
>of critical dissonance is always welcome, it 
>does not help when it becomes too personal.  We 
>have enough genuine antagonists out there who 
>need to be dealt with in our uphill struggle for 
>sustainability, for us to be very cautious about 
>discrediting each other.  So let me see if I can 
>get out of this quickly so we can get on to more important things.
>
>Anyway . . . sorry everyone, but I got a bit 
>carried away when Sunny suggested sharing this 
>with the group. Now we are in the main rather 
>far away from our reason for being here, but 
>there is I rather think a deeper and still 
>relevant logic to the point which I have 
>obviously made with insufficient tact. Let me 
>give this one last whack and then get back to work.
>
>Let me stick with the immediate facts at the 
>base of my heart-felt statement, which had 
>nothing to do with Livingstone’s past behaviour 
>over his long, raucous, but very useful 
>career.  I was applauding the good mayor for 
>going after the US embassy in every day language 
>in its legalistic defense of their inalienable 
>right not to pay a toll. (And it is a toll and not a tax.)
>
>So yes, I would like the US government to line 
>up on this one and pay up just like you and I do 
>in our daily lives. For reasons that you too 
>surely appreciate. I have followed the releases 
>on this from our Embassy and I am not impressed. 
> From a professional, environmental and social 
>perspective I find their behaviour more than 
>embarrassing, and why they chose to make a 
>“cause celebre” of  this cannot be pure 
>accident. They and their deep pocketed oil 
>friends who constitute the present administration are sending a message.
>
>As always when we are confronted with a 
>difference of opinion, it is off to the 
>dictionary, in this case Webster’s Unabridged, 
>Second edition, which tells us this:
>
>·         “Chiseling” – “Obtaining of goods or 
>money under false pretenses or misrepresentation”.
>
>Hmm. I am into the ‘false pretenses’ bit here. 
>Let me see, if I like Mr. Tuttle had made my 
>fortune in the car business, and was part of a 
>political network that was strongly opposed to 
>anything that might in anyway hinder the ‘old 
>mobility’ car-based oil-based system, and I had 
>a shot at it, I surely would try to find a way 
>to undermine any sort of policy which might 
>spread like a (benevolent) virus. And being a 
>‘diplomat’ (as it were. . . I rather think a 
>political appointee of the current president), I 
>would seek to do this on legalistic grounds. And there you have it.
>
>Finally. . .  as to Ken’s doing “good things for 
>transport”.  Well, good and less good.  But hey! 
>that’s what mayors do, at best. It’s a big, 
>complicated and conflicted world out there, and 
>when it comes to sustainable mobility by any 
>name we, the main proponents of these policies, 
>still have quite some way to go before we have 
>made it easy for them. Which is indeed our job.
>
>So, if I may: Now back to transport and better 
>and softer cities. If you want to tangle more on 
>this Jonathan, may I respectfully suggest we do it in private?
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Eric Britton
>
>
>
>
>
>I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate.
>
>Ken Livingstone has been referred for 
>disciplinary action for calling the US 
>Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This 
>follows an initial action, where he was 
>disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that 
>Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the 
>UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office.
>
>Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. 
>Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a 
>matter of international convention. So to call 
>the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for 
>exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate.
>
>I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, 
>and I do hope that he is removed from office as 
>soon as possible. He has certainly done some 
>good things for Transport, but there are others 
>who can build on this without feeling the need 
>to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- 
>as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan
>
>
>-----
>Jonathan Richmond
>Visiting Scholar
>Department of Urban Planning and Design
>Graduate School of Design
>Harvard University
>312 George Gund Hall
>48 Quincy St.
>Cambridge MA 02138-3000
>
>Mailing address:
>182 Palfrey St.
>Watertown MA 02472-1835
>
>(617) 395-4360
>
>e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu 
><http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/>http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sunny [<mailto:sksunny at gmail.com>mailto:sksunny at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM
> > To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
> > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . .
> >
> > Dear Eric,
> >
> > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in
> > the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it
> > on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the
> > fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the
> > diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question
> > is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system.
> >
> > Sunny
> >
> >
> > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM:
> >
> >           "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in
> > Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not
> > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook,"
> >           "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for
> > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the
> > congestion charge.
> >           "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in
> > America. We are not going to have them skive out of their
> > responsibilities."
> >           Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK
> >
> > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my
> > government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the
> > world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving
> > utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the
> > Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter
> > shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice.
> > We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the
> > Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own
> > land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups
> > in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye
> > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make war
> > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing
> > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up
> > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess.
> >
> > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a
> > "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen,
> > voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later
> > peace worker in
> > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with 
> US refusal to pay the Congestion
> > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly
> > wrong. It's not that I think that the London 
> scheme is all that it could and
> > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme
> > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just paying
> > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of
> > total disagreement with you.
> >
> > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do
> > not give in!  Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what
> > democracy is all about.
> >
> > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what
> > the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before
> > and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was
> > simply one straw too much.)
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> >
> >
> > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls
> >  Financial Times
> >
> > By Christopher Adams in London
> >
> > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006
> > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of
> > behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's
> > refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously
> > outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign
> > policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview.
> > His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute
> > over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that
> > is levied on those driving through central London during business
> > hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the £8 a day toll since
> > last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid
> > charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and
> > fines for each day of non-payment can be as much £150 a vehicle. The
> > embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt.
> > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It
> > would actually be quite nice if the American 
> ambassador in Britain could pay
> > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out
> > of it like a chiselling little crook."
> > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British 
> troops are putting their lives
> > on the line for American foreign policy, it 
> would be quite nice if they paid
> > the congestion charge."
> > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is
> > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from
> > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a
> > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with whom
> > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should
> > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents.
> > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being
> > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London
> > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a
> > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that."
> > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
> >
> >
> > US Embassy must pay C-charge
> > US Embassy owes £160,000 in unpaid charges
> > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's
> > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador
> > Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim
> > diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes.
> > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to do
> > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pay
> > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway.
> > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask the
> > Americans to reconsider their position.
> > US embassy staff currently owe more than £160,000 in unpaid congestion
> > charges in London.
> > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying
> > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of
> > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax
> > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host
> > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.'
> > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the
> > congestion charge is not a tax and that it 
> decides what is and what is not a
> > tax in this country.
> > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for
> > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must
> > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax.
> > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The 
> congestion charging scheme gives
> > no privileges to any VIPs, including the 
> Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Members
> > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay.
> > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.'
> >
> > Press Release
> > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees
> > 6-4-2006   201
> > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its
> > diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached
> > a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport
> > for London, the UAE has paid £99,950.00 for outstanding congestion
> > charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006.
> > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort
> > will be made in the future for all diplomats 
> working for this Embassy to pay
> > any congestion charges as and when they occur."
> > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 
> "All Londoners will welcome this
> > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particular,
> > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the
> > future.
> > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce 
> congestion in the busiest areas
> > of the capital.
> > "Those embassies, such as that of the United 
> States, which flout the laws of
> > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity 
> to evade the charge are enjoying
> > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing."
> > "British diplomats respect US law when in the 
> US. They pay American tolls on
> > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British
> > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws they
> > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens.
> > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and
> > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they
> > can well afford to respect this country's laws."
> > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congestion
> > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why
> > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other
> > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge."
> > Notes to Editors
> > 1.  Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice
> > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charge.
> > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent
> > members of HM Queen's Counsel.
> > 2.  In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw
> > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that:
> > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained
> > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from
> > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal
> > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion charge
> > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention,
> > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected to
> > pay."
> > 3.  On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary
> > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lords:
> > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to meet
> > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any
> > fines that they incur. Following the annual 
> Written Ministerial Statement on
> > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 
> December, we will now formally
> > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to
> > find out what steps they are taking to pay. 
> We will then take further action
> > as appropriate".
> > 4.  All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking
> > charges.
> > 5.  Support for this approach has come from both this country and the
> > US.
> > 6.  In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We
> > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge".  The New
> > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his
> > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars, including fines".
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion 
>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable 
>transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of 
>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060409/5e37fbb5/attachment.html