In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> But the license "renewal fee" IS a user fee,it gives you license to USE the
> roads;no pay,no use.

Just produce the IL law that says so.

> So what? why does it HAVE to "cover" unlimited usage?

If it's a user fee, then it should. Otherwise taxes are coming from
somewhere else to pay for the roads too.

>> And cig taxes aren't user taxes for anything.

> But I have not claimed that cig taxes are user fees.
> I merely said that the sticker on the packs is a tax stamp.

Then it's an irrelevant example.

>> The obvious is your being picky with tax labels for bicycling and not
>> being so with autos.

> You appear to tbe the "picky" one about labels.
> I'm flexible enough to understand what is actually a user fee and what's
> not.And honest enough about it.

This all started because you don't like bicycling being more than covered
by various non-automotive sources of tax revenue that go to roads. You
bitched there wasn't a specific 'bicycle user fee'. Yet there is no
specific 'automotive user fee' either.

>>> License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the
>>> vehicle on public roads.(state permission)
>>
>> Not that I have seen in the law.
>
> You just refuse to see.(actually refuse to admit,I know you understand)

Show me the relevant law.

>>> I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about licensing
>>> bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user fee long
>>> ago.

>> It's not a user fee in IL. I've had a car ticketed that was parked on
>> private property for expired registration. It never left the property.

> Due to LOCAL laws about junk or abandoned cars that are not garaged,but
> left outside.

Not what it was ticketed for. Car appeared perfectly functional and was.

>> Bogus ticket, because the law doesn't require it, but the cops
>> certainly don't share your interpetation of it as just a 'user fee'.