By my best-guess estimations it could be implemented by the end of the week. The Month at most. No massive government handouts, no huge new department of global chaos.

Here it is: An incremental Federal gas tax. From now and until the tax is $15.00 per gallon we’re going to increase the federal gas tax by .25c every three months. Public transit authorities can get exactly 50% off of the tax. This applies to all fuels known as “gas” including diesel, regular, jet, ethanol etc. If you’re propelling a vehicle by burning something you’re going to pay for it. A little bit now, a WHOLE LOT very soon.

I don’t care what we do with the money. Pay down the national debt. Fund child health care. Build public transit. Explore Mars.

As of today, we’re paying about $1.90 for gas in the US. Back in July of 2008 we were paying $4. So with this plan in place, in two years time we’ll be back to where we were this summer. Then two more years and we’ll be paying $6.00 per gallon. If you KNEW that big SUV would cost $17 a gallon to drive in 15 years would you really want a 20 year loan on it? Suddenly the math for a Prius is looking a lot better. You’ve got some time, but in the next couple of years you know you’ll have to move closer to work, buy a bike, a smaller car, learn the bus schedule, work from home etc.

The EPA won’t need to dictate average MPG standards for car companies: the market will do it far faster. Local governments won’t need to invest in downtown redevelopment: sub-urban properties will quickly become far less attractive to developers.

To this end, the City of Eugene formed the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team. The goal of the group is to “prevent negative impacts of infill and encourage positive infill.” This would seem like a worthy cause, but I would counter that the name of the group and the goal are not the same.

Eugene has a number of nice neighborhoods where you’ll find beautiful homes, gardens, and public space. But as with any city there will always be a house or two that don’t fit in with the surrounding area. For example consider these three shots from the Whittaker / Skinner Butte area. The first two are examples of infill, with both of these examples being attractive and “in character” with the surrounding area. The final example is an eyesore, but is most certainly not infill.

The problem with being “Compatible” is that sometimes the existing neighborhood is ugly to begin with. I live in a house that was built in the 1970s in the Churchill area. My neighborhood and several others around were constructed in cookie-cutter fashion, with about five different house patterns to choose from. All of them are single story, with a two car garage, a useless fireplace, and are set back from the street approximately the same amount. In short, I live in a mostly-ugly neighborhood.

Now perhaps you live in the house next door and are tempted to take offense at my less than high praise of your house. Let me remind you that your house is probably the same layout as mine, has the same thin walls and the same uselessly small closets that mine has. We live in our respective houses because they had the correct beauty-per-dollar ratio for our wallet size. (The same can be said of those fortunate enough to live in nicer houses.)

Some neighborhoods are simply not compatible with beauty. Don’t put that nice looking multi-family building next to me! My house would look even worse than it already is, and I’d feel like even more of a schmuck for living here. Only ugly homes here please.

What a horrible reality that would be, as we’d never improve the existing neighborhoods that need it most. I would much rather we gradually move in the direction of beauty even if it doesn’t fit the immediate surroundings. If you’d like to buy my house and put an attractive multi-family home here I’m sure we could work something out.

Perhaps the “Infill compatibility standards task team” should be renamed to the “Ugly building elimination task team” and just be done with it.