The term “smart city” conjures images of futuristic utopias where technology seamlessly enhances our daily lives. Traffic flows like a symphony, garbage trucks only show up when needed, and potholes fill themselves while apologizing for the inconvenience. But peel back the glossy veneer, and you’ll find that these so-called smart initiatives are often just a new way to nickel-and-dime residents. Let’s take a tour through the cityscape of this digital pickpocketing.A costly clean air measureFirst stop, the U.K., where the government’s Ultra Low Emission Zones have become the bane of anyone driving a car older than yesterday’s news. London’s ULEZ charges drivers of older vehicles a hefty £12.50 (~ ) daily fee for the privilege of entering certain areas. The idea
Topics:
Zach Varnell considers the following as important: 6b) Mises.org, Featured, newsletter
This could be interesting, too:
Guillermo Alcala writes USD/CHF slides to test 0.8645 support with US inflation data on tap
Swissinfo writes Swiss central bank posts CHF62.5bn profit
Nachrichten Ticker - www.finanzen.ch writes Trump-Faktor und Marktbedingungen könnten für neuen Bitcoin-Rekord sorgen
Charles Hugh Smith writes Is Social Media Actually “Media,” Or Is It Something Else?
The term “smart city” conjures images of futuristic utopias where technology seamlessly enhances our daily lives. Traffic flows like a symphony, garbage trucks only show up when needed, and potholes fill themselves while apologizing for the inconvenience. But peel back the glossy veneer, and you’ll find that these so-called smart initiatives are often just a new way to nickel-and-dime residents. Let’s take a tour through the cityscape of this digital pickpocketing.
A costly clean air measure
First stop, the U.K., where the government’s Ultra Low Emission Zones have become the bane of anyone driving a car older than yesterday’s news. London’s ULEZ charges drivers of older vehicles a hefty £12.50 (~ $16) daily fee for the privilege of entering certain areas. The idea is to cut down on pollution. Noble, right? But the execution feels more like a tax on the poor. Those who can’t afford or are skeptical of the latest eco-chic ride end up emptying their pockets to pay for what is, in effect, a green tax dressed in sustainability’s clothing.
According to London’s mayor, 78% of London’s poorest cannot afford to drive, and for those considering it, the ULEZ fee adds another daunting barrier to entry. Aspiring drivers must weigh not just the costs of a car, insurance, taxes, upkeep, and fuel but also whether they can afford the daily fee — or stretch their budget to purchase the modern vehicles that are exempt.
Trash tactics: Fort Worth’s revenue racket
Having witnessed how London’s ULEZ policy subtly extracts pounds from the pockets of those least able to afford it, we turn our sights to a seemingly unrelated issue across the Atlantic. In Fort Worth, Texas — where Big Brother rides shotgun in the city’s garbage trucks.
These trucks are decked out with cameras, eager to issue fines like a meter maid on commission. Is your trash lid sticking up? That’ll be a fine, thank you very much. Have an extra bag this week? Money, please.
For many, the choice isn’t between following or flouting the rules but between essential spending like food, rent, and healthcare versus paying a fine for a slightly overstuffed trash can. It’s not about keeping streets clean — it’s about who gets cleaned out.
Why not let a little competition clean up our trash troubles? If trash companies had to scrap it out for your business, you bet your last banana peel you’d see prices plummet while service sparkles.
Manhattan’s pay-to-play pavement
As Fort Worth residents navigate the introduction of sanitation surveillance, let’s shift to New York City, where the concept of control scales up dramatically. The proposed congestion pricing plan is another shining example of smart technology wielded as a fiscal club. The plan proposes charging drivers to enter Manhattan’s central business district. It’s touted as a way to reduce traffic and bolster public transit, but let’s call it what it is: a backdoor tax on everyone not riding the subway.
Low-income workers and small business owners are hit hardest, turning a commute into a costly daily ordeal. And don’t forget — every Uber ride, every cab you hail, your late-night food delivery, and even the handyman service will tack this on to your bill, passing the financial burden right back to the consumer.
Luckily, this initiative has faced delays and opposition, a small victory for those hoping not to be squeezed dry in the Big Apple. It seems the governor, cautious in an election year, has noticed the chilly reception and pressed pause. In a genuine free market, such a scheme wouldn’t stand a chance, but don’t be surprised if it resurfaces once the election dust settles.
Intersection injustice: The red light camera hustle
Even smaller cities have been cashing in on the smart tech trend. Red light cameras, pitched as tools to enhance intersection safety, have often turned into municipal moneymakers. Cities like Chattanooga, Lubbock, Nashville and Dallas have come under scrutiny for setting illegally short yellow light times to boost ticket numbers and revenues. Chattanooga even had to hand back cash to the drivers it duped.
But it gets worse: these cameras may not just be unnecessary but harmful. Research from the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M found that tacking on just one extra second to the yellow light cuts red-light running by half. Another low-tech option is to increase the all-red buffer time, giving both streams of traffic a pause and truly safeguarding the intersection.
Yet, many cities opt for revenue-generating cameras that can even lead to an uptick in rear-end accidents, as drivers abruptly brake at the sight of a yellow light to dodge a potential ticket. This raises critical questions about the true priorities in traffic management — public safety or profit?
San Francisco’s parking payday
As we see in Chattanooga, where dubious strategies boost municipal revenue at drivers’ expense, a similar drive for profit is evident on the West Coast. San Francisco’s SFpark program uses sensors to monitor parking space occupancy and adjust rates. Dynamic pricing sounds great in theory, but when you’re paying premium rates just to park for a quick errand, it starts to feel like a shakedown. The technology meant to alleviate congestion instead adds another layer of cost to urban living. It’s enough to make you long for the days of quarters and meters that didn’t change their minds every hour.
Conservation or cash grab?
In California, the trend of using “smart” technology to extract more from residents continues with the introduction of smart water meters. These devices were introduced to manage water usage during droughts. But instead of fostering conservation, they’ve led to sky-high fines for residents. Inaccurate readings and unclear usage limits have left people scratching their heads and emptying their pockets. This is water we’re talking about, a basic necessity turned into a pricey commodity by the magic of smart technology.
The shock of dynamic pricing
Finally, our journey brings us back to Texas, but this time with a focus on a different type of meter: the smart electricity meter. These meters allow for real-time monitoring and dynamic pricing. During the 2021 winter storm, residents faced astronomical electricity bills as prices surged. The very technology meant to manage demand left people choosing between heat and bankruptcy. It’s a cruel twist of fate when surviving a storm leaves you financially underwater.
As our tour of these so-called smart city initiatives comes to an end, it’s clear that the promise of technological utopia often disguises a more cynical reality. These technologies, rather than enhancing our lives, frequently serve as tools for municipalities to nickel-and-dime their residents, turning everyday necessities into costly burdens.
For those looking to dive deeper into these issues, the documentary “SMART: Coming to a City Near You” provides a revealing look at the realities of living in an increasingly surveilled landscape. This film is a must-see for anyone wanting to understand how these technologies are reshaping our cities.
If you’re inclined to take action, consider exploring Banish Big Brother, an organization I’m proud to be involved with. We work to ensure that any technology implementation doesn’t come at the cost of our privacy. As more cities embrace smart technologies, our mission to advocate for privacy safeguards becomes increasingly vital. If these issues resonate with you, we invite you to join us in our efforts.
The future of our communities shouldn’t come at the cost of our privacy and financial well-being. While technology holds the potential to genuinely enhance our quality of life, it must be implemented with transparency, accountability, and choice.
Tags: Featured,newsletter