First, let's state for the record that Ken Bensinger and the Los Angeles Times did a public service by shining a harsh light on the largely unregulated "Buy Here Pay Here" used car dealership industry. Too many dealers in this industry and preying on poor people desperate for a car by intentionally driving up their debt so that in the end the "dealership" ends up with the shoppers money and gets a chance to sell the car all over again.
In the third part of the three part series, Bensinger and the Times recommend finding ways to make car ownership more affordable for people of lesser means. Not wanting to dismiss this solution without a better one of my own, I asked a group of people who regularly appear on Streetsblog as authors or as sources in our stories for their thoughts and solutions.
The narrative is what you would expect, that subsidizing car ownership (or further subsidizing car ownership) is not the answer that's going to make vampire industries that prey on the poor's transportation needs go away. We had a burst of good answers, many of which are outlined below. Full articles by Occidental College Professor Mark Vallianatos and Eastside Bike Club Founder Carlos Morales will be published tomorrow and Thursday. Some of the other answers are summarized below, and full text of these answers can be found here.
Joe Linton, Streetsblog Board Chair and CicLAvia consultant: Many public subsidies to reduce the cost of owning a car are already in place: from free parking to subsidized gas to huge public investments in expensive car-centered infrastructure (and those are more direct subsidies - there are externalities like environmental and health care costs that are caused by and not paid for by the driving public.) No Los Angeles driver today ever pays the real cost of their driving. They're already getting a bargain.
I think that if we're looking to subsidize transportation in ways that are good for low-income people, it's better for the public to invest in a balanced system that gives people choices.Subsidizing transit, walking, and bicycling will yield mobility that's affordable for all and accessible to all. If low-income people have many viable choices, then they are less at the mercy of loan-shark car dealerships.
Roadblock, Midnight Ridazz "organizer" and Neighborhood Council Member: I sent a letter to the Times asking to know which broken down underfunded city agency Ken Bensinger expects to absorb the increased cost of road maintenance and traffic gridlock when the surge of hundreds of thousands of (taxpayer subsidized) 4000lb pavement destroying machines hits the roads as a result of the proposed "cars for poor people" program?
I suggested that Instead of proposing a program that destroys public infrastructure, it's time to seek ways to reduce wear and tear on our roads and actually produces a better ROI since the gas supplies little to no funding for infrastructure in our cities.
Adrian Martinez, at NRDC Switchboard: We have to question whom the current transportation accommodates. The third article mentions that the Department of Transportation spent $71 billion this fiscal year on roads and bridges, $22 billion on public transit and more than $8 billion on rail projects. In places like Los Angeles, where our clogged freeways are known internationally, why do we continue to funnel billions of public dollars into projects that either A) benefit solely private industry like the freight industry or B) do not accommodate efficient and diverse transportation options for residents?
Damien Goodmon, Director of Citizens Campaign to Fix the Expo Line and Crenshaw Subway Coalition: Six words: Implement the Get LA Moving plan.
Allison Mannos, Former Director of LACBC's City of Lights Campaign and staffer with LAANE: I would just say how important it is to increase bus headways in these low-income neighborhoods, especially the ones that connect them to job corridors, say, Wilshire.
