Getting on the buses and trains for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system is always an ordeal. There is always that sense of dread as to what sort of crazy person you’re going to run into today. Will there be a bum sleeping off his latest heroin/fentanyl fix lying at your feet? (True story.) Going to get threatened by the local “diversity”? (Also true story.) What if there was a better way?
The City of Plano and several other suburban cities around Dallas are currently negotiating changes to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system with the DART board. DART was created in 1983, and replaced the Dallas Transit System. DART includes within its service area more than just the City of Dallas. Several suburban cities are covered under DART service, and, as part of this coverage, sales taxes are imposed on the sale of goods and services to cover the costs of DART. (Fees are charged to riders, but the sales taxes provide the bulk of the money for DART.)
I wanted to write a little on this topic because I think it is assumed that anyone in favor of capitalism must be against the use of buses and trains in cities. I think it is a mistake to assume this. In an ideal world, I would very much prefer to use buses and trains. I would generally prefer to live in a place where I did not need to own a car to get around. (I don’t want to get into all the reasons I don’t think this is an ideal world right now, as it would be a distraction concerning my overall point. Let’s just say it relates to the people who tend to be on the buses and trains, and their behavior. It’s also the fact that our cities, especially Dallas, are set up in such a manner that being carless is not a good option.)
In a better culture, with better laws, that was closer to pure capitalism, cities would be private entities. Services like roads for cars, sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers, and trains and buses would all be owned by a private corporation. This corporation would replace all functions of city government, other than the police and perhaps municipal courts. It’s also possible that some services currently provided by a single city government would be provided by multiple corporations. But, I suspect it would make the most economic sense to put most of those services into one entity that provides a complete “package” of services in the area.
People would then “vote with their feet”, on where to live. They’d choose cities with the bundle of services and infrastructure that best served their needs and lifestyles. People who preferred more car-centric cities could live in those cities. People who prefer to use buses, trains, bikes, and walking, could live in those cities. Cities would also set the terms of who could live there, and under what conditions. It would probably become common to require criminal background checks to ensure safety in a city. People with criminal records would be barred from living in certain areas, or even from living in the city at all. Cities would set the terms on which roads, sidewalks, and other city assets could be used on a wide variety of topics. For instance, fully privatized cities could set the terms on whether and how firearms could be carried on private roads, private parks, and private sidewalks. Cities would set the terms on what sorts of gatherings and speech could be engaged in, as it is all private property. People who prefer cities that allow them to carry firearms or to engage in more or less speech on sidewalks and roads could move to the cities that offer more or less of that. The terms of use for things like roads, sidewalks, busses, and trains could also contain a requirement that individuals are subject to “stop and frisk” and other crime control measures, thereby reducing criminality. (People who do not like it are free to move to other cities that don’t have such requirements. No one is forced to pay for cities they don’t like.)
The private city would charge fees for its services. For instance, given advances in technology, city roads would likely be electronically tolled now, with drivers being charged some fee for every mile driven on those roads. (In the past, before electronic toll tags became so easy to implement, this might have been some other system, such as receiving a sticker or plate to put on your car that shows you paid the monthly user fee, and then private security or cops would stop and evict/fine anyone driving on the road without the proper sticker/plate.) Bicycle lanes and even pedestrian pathways might be tolled, or portions of them tolled, too. For instance, a particularly scenic walkway might be tolled with an entry fee, and bicycle paths might be patrolled by security/cops, who require you to have a displayed sticker or small plate, or a QR code, on your bike. (Those who don’t are evicted as trespassers, and/or fined for trespassing.) Rules regarding the use of bike paths, roads, and pedestrian walkways would all be set by the property owner(s). No longer would homeless people and mentally ill people be able to just camp out on sidewalks or roadsides, as this would be trespassing. Likely some portion of the roads, sidewalks, and bike paths would also be paid by local businesses. For instance, the entity that owns a road or sidewalk might charge a business a fee to get access to the road or sidewalk in front of it. Without paying the fee, the entity might block off the road or sidewalk such that access to the business is impossible. (They could erect a large wall, or some other such thing preventing cars and pedestrians from going from the road to the business or vice-versa.) Other methods/business models are possible when it comes to funding. (For instance, advertising billboards might be used on some roads by the owner of the road to defer costs.)
How do we get from where we are today, with city governments delivering services like roads, to a completely privatized city, where the only thing city government manages are the police and local courts? Such a privatization could take different forms. I think it would require some sort of transfer of the ownership of things like roads, sidewalks, bike lanes, and other city land/property to a corporation. Shares in the corporation would then be distributed to the local property owners and taxpayers. Perhaps everyone owning property in the area gets a number of shares in the corporation proportional to the amount of property they own in the city limits. I believe cities are currently funded mostly through sales taxes and property taxes, so these taxpayers should get shares in the corporation, but the exact details of the privatization can be worked out at some future point when our society is actually ready to do so. The principle of the privatization, and who should own city infrastructure, would be based on the idea that the current taxpayers are the true owners of city property. These taxpayers should receive ownership interests in the city in proportion to the amount of taxes they pay.
Until city infrastructure is truly privatized, we should seek to mirror the private, free market model by giving a greater say to those who are actually paying the money to support the system. In the case of DART, that means giving the people who pay the sales taxes a say in how DART is run. People who pay more sales taxes should have a greater say when it comes to DART.
The City of Dallas contributed about half the sales taxes for DART. Up until recently, it had more than 50% of the board members for the entity that controls DART. This was clearly unfair, but apparently Dallas has agreed to give up more seats to other cities to keep them from withdrawing from DART. This is fairer, and closer to a private system where ownership is tied to capital contribution.
I would propose that this be taken a step further. The State Legislature should pass a law that creates a new “charter” or “constitution” for DART that directly ties membership on the entity that controls DART to how much sales tax revenue the city contributes. It should probably be something along the lines of: each city within the DART service area gets one member on the DART Board. A city then gets additional members on the DART Board based on their relative contribution to funding DART through sales taxes. For instance, Dallas contributes roughly half, so it gets enough additional members to give it roughly 50% of the Board members. Every other city gets additional members on the Board to reflect their relative contributions. If a City’s contribution to DART changes over a period of time, then it gets fewer or more Board members. This can all be enforced in court, so a city can ensure it is receiving its fair share of Board members.
Some cursory research indicates that DART’s enabling legislation is found at Chapter 452 of the Texas Transportation Code, so this should be modified to put this into effect. The current DART Board only has 15 members. The Board would probably need to be expanded to ensure each city in DART gets at least one member, and to ensure proper proportional representation based on amount of sales tax contributed. I also believe that members to the DART Board are currently appointed by each city’s council. Another possible reform to consider would be to make the DART Board members elective at the city level, so that members of the public choose their DART Board representatives. There might be downsides to making the positions elective, however. Local elections usually draw very few voters, so it is easy for local interest groups to round up a number of voters, take them to the polls, and influence the outcome of the election. It might be better to leave the system as an appointed system, with DART Board members chosen by the local city council, which has the knowledge and resources to pick good Board members. Alternatively, perhaps one of a city’s DART Board members is elected, and the rest are appointed by the city’s council. This gives some direct representation by the city’s voters. So, for instance, if the City of Dallas had ten members on the DART Board, one of those is elected by the voters, and the other nine are appointed by the Dallas City Council.
Unfortunately, a completely privatized City of Dallas and local suburbs is not possible under the current system of governmental interference in the free market. Until pure capitalism is established, the State Legislature should do its best to ensure that local taxpayers who pay for DART are in control of the Board, and are able to control the system’s future growth and progress.
