Europe Begins Noise Mapping Effort

Makarand writes "The European continent has begun its fight against noise pollution by initiating a program to map noise levels for cities in the European Union with more than 250,000 people. As placing microphones on every building in London or Paris to measure noise was not practical, data on the amount of traffic carried by roads and the noise levels was fed into computers to generate a model of noise levels across the city. The model's accuracy was verified by taking readings with microphones at 100 points in the city and was found to be accurate on average to within 1 decibel. The noise maps will allow planning to insulate the public from noise by directing traffic away from residential areas and making funds available to sound-proof thin walled homes."

Comments

Rich country?

[ObviousGuy]

Sometimes I wish the U.S. government wasn't spending so much trying to build up the military and instead redirect those funds to building up the national infrastructure.

It especially pangs me when I read about things like this where the British government is spending lots of excess government funds on sound-proofing people's homes.

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has a lower population density than Europe. So noise problems are a bigger issue.

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put solar cells on your roof, buy a hybrid car, put in insulation that keeps sound out and heat (or cold) in. You'll get a little love from Uncle Sam too. Oh. You wanted a fucking hand-out? Well, you're not cutting in front of me, I'll tell you that much!

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Did you even think before you posted, or do you just like to bring politics into every possible discussion? Europe has a much higher population density, therefore you can expect noise problems to be worse. I'm from Canada, but I don't recall hearing people from the US ranting and raving about the "noise pollution". It's barely been touched on by the media.

Re:Rich country?

[RevMike]

Sometimes I wish the U.S. government wasn't spending so much trying to build up the military and instead redirect those funds to building up the national infrastructure.

It especially pangs me when I read about things like this where the British government is spending lots of excess government funds on sound-proofing people's homes.

Please explain this to me. Someone purchases a house with walls that aren't very sound proof. They presumably knew this at the time of purchase, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Someone else spends the time to investigate their choices, and eventually spends more money on a house with more sound proof walls. Why should the person who spent extra to buy a house with soundproof walls now have to pay additional taxes to soundproof someone else's home - someone else who didn't care enough about it to shop for that feature in the first place?

If you bought a four bedroom home, and your neighbor only bought a two bedroom home, would you expect that the tax man would come and empty your bank account so that you neighbor could get an addition built?

All this does is encourage people to do the cheapest thing possible, then use some ill concieved government program to clean up the mess afterwards.

Please note: I'm not talking about a situation where the government built an airport or some such thing near a previously quiet neighborhood. I'm talking about cases where the home-owner knew (or should have known) the conditions prior to purchase.

Re:Rich country?

[ThogScully]

I know this is Slashdot, but don't you ever go outside? Not much you can do to sound proof your yard, is there. I assume you never open your windows either? Personally, I do both and if I were in England, I would hope the government would be spending a little effort to make living areas a little more liveable.

Now, I'm from the US, so I can't say if this is useful or not to the areas being investigated because I've never been there and don't know how loud it is. Realistically, there's the potential that this is more of a made up problem and people shouldn't be so concerned as the noise levels don't warrant it. However, just from this article, I'd say that's not an assumption I can jump to.

You seem to have no trouble jumping to it though.
-N

Re:Rich country?

[gl4ss]

those houses were probably built decades ago. if they were built now they would have adequate soundproofing from day 1. it's more of a problem in old, big, central area buildings. these buildings have a lot of other problems as well though, but it's not the way you do things in certain countries that you would just demolish them and build them again properly(and sometimes it's wanted to keep the old buildings as heritage in the city picture). these buildings that are in the centres of the cities are sometimes 50 or more years old, and back then soundproofing wasn't viewed as necessity(there weren't that much noise anyways).

it's in goverments(the peoples!) intrest to protect the people from stress that comes from extra noise.. it costs money you know when people are unable to work for some reason or another. you could argue that it's in their(peoples) intrest to spend the money in nukes that are then stored in silos for 50 years and then thrown away as well, but i might not agree(the nukes don't up the productivity or enhance the living quality).

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone purchases a house with walls that aren't very sound proof. They presumably knew this at the time of purchase, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

Actually there are a lot of houses built when traffic was minimal (I talking two or three cars an hour minimal here) which only sixty years later find themselves plonked only a couple of yards away from some of the busiest roads in and out of Central London. A lot of people bought these houses back when noise was not an issue, but have found that over the years the roads have been expanded and the traffic levels increaed until it has been a major problem. Councils have never allocated funds to improve the noise levels, either.

Before anyone gets all excited and tries to argue that these people should move, let me just say:

• Why the hell should they? They were there first.
• These are almost without exception older couples who have lived in the same house for sixty years. These houses are very much their homes.
• The resall value of their houses are pitiful (They're right on a major road!) and wouldn't provide them with even slightly enough money to purchase a similiar property anywhere else.

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf, if someone wants a soundproofed house they can bloody well pay for it themselves.

Keep your grubby little paws off my wallet.

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this doesn't actually put the cost of the things on the people who benefit from them.

No, of course you don't charge homeowners extra money in order to run a motorway through their back garden. Are you insane? Even putting up a sound barrier probably won't prevent the value of the nearby property from falling, so actually you should be charging tolls on all new or enlarged roads and paying a proportion of those tolls to people who live nearby.

Re:Rich country?

[aallan]

Please explain this to me. Someone purchases a house with walls that aren't very sound proof. They presumably knew this at the time of purchase, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Someone else spends the time to investigate their choices, and eventually spends more money on a house with more sound proof walls. Why should the person who spent extra to buy a house with soundproof walls now have to pay additional taxes to soundproof someone else's home - someone else who didn't care enough about it to shop for that feature in the first place?

Welcome to the difference between a pure capitalist economy, and a one where some remenants of socialism still remain. The person buying the sub-standard house might not be able to afford a better one? Why shouldn't our tax money be used to improve their standard of living?

All this does is encourage people to do the cheapest thing possible, then use some ill concieved government program to clean up the mess afterwards.

No, it doesn't. The "ill concieved government program" is helping improve the country's housing stock. Eventually all houses will be well sound proofed and you've improved everyone's standard of living. What's wrong with that?

The problem with far right and the far left is that there are things wrong with both capitalism and socialism. Ayn Rand is just as bad a Karl Marx.

Al.

Re:Rich country?

[RevMike]

I know this is Slashdot, but don't you ever go outside? Not much you can do to sound proof your yard, is there. I assume you never open your windows either? Personally, I do both and if I were in England, I would hope the government would be spending a little effort to make living areas a little more liveable.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the original comment was discussing the soundproofing of walls in homes. No matter how much money the government gives people to sound insulate their walls, it isn't going to help their yard. (Unless, of course, the major source of sound pollution is in their home. Turn the Stereo down!)

There are reasonable steps that governments can take to reduce outdoor noise pollution at its source. For many years now various agencies have been mandating the use of quieter jet engines. Highways are frequently built with noise barriers. These steps reduce all noise pollution, and allow people to enjoy their gardens as well as their homes.

Re:Rich country?

[RevMike]

Maybe if you consider that spending money improving problems in residential areas (like doing stuff about traffic noise) that raises the value of the area and make it a more desirable place to live might have some beneficial, if not immediate effects for everyone.

Certainly, but it would be much more effective to treat the cause rather than the effect. Would soundproofing people's homes really do that much good in improving the neighborhood if people couldn't open a window or sit in their yard for fear of the noise? Better that the noise be mitigated nearer to the source. Let people enjoy their yards and local parks to.

Re:Rich country?

[ThogScully]

No, you're not wrong... but the article is also about finding ways to adjust traffic routing to reduce noise pollution outside. The research this article talks about is likely useful for both applications, but to decide that the research is useless because it will justify the government buying people new walls is rather an odd argument.
-N

Re:Rich country?

[Brad]

A better solution would be to have the homeowners association pay for the sound barriers.

Within or near city centers many of the effected neighborhoods were built long before the road was expanded or even built. Many were boulivards carrying traffic at sedate speeds before their conversion to multi-lane super-highways that carry a greatly increased volume of vehicles at much higher speeds.

To follow a slightly different logic: The people using the roads should be the ones paying for them (forget about the lower taxes on diesel fuel used by the large trucks whose relentless pounding destroys the roads). As a direct result of the people using the new road, there is a large increase in noise. Therefore, as part of the roadway's construction or expansion, noise reduction needs to be included to try and mitigate some of the new noise pollution.

Re:Rich country?

[jridley]

Please note: I'm not talking about a situation where the government built an airport or some such thing near a previously quiet neighborhood. I'm talking about cases where the home-owner knew (or should have known) the conditions prior to purchase.

I've seen the same sort of short-sighted buying in the US in rural areas. I've seen places where people have built new houses a half mile from a livestock farm that has been there for 50 years, then when they finally move in, they discover that when the wind is blowing the right way, there's a smell. Then they try to get zoning changed, or they sue, or some other tactic, to try to get the farm closed. What, you didn't think pigs smelled? Or did you even check to see who your neighbors were?

Re:Rich country?

[gfxguy]

I am willing to forgo buying some of that seemingly-benign-consumer-garbage in order to help pay researchers to think about something useful. Are you? Im betting most sane, normal people would agree.

I would hope most sane, normal people would agree that if you wanted to make that decision, then go ahead and make that decision for yourself and not everyone else. Or do you really think you're so much smarter than everybody else that your ideas should be mandated by an already fat government?

The Automobile that I contribute to manufacturing is not a goal I consider worthy of my time. I have no problem working, its the *goal* or product of my effort that is worthless.

So you've made the decision to work for a place that produces products contrary to your idealogical goals. That's your fault. Now you'd like government to come in and do... what? Force more regulations on your employer?

You need to do what YOU think is right, regardless of what people around you are doing. YOU need to set an example. We don't need the government forcing new regulations on us.

If you want to set an example by walking more or whatever, bully for you. If your employer CHOOSES to do something to quiet their vehicles, bully for them. There are choices for people trying to get away from noise, there are already solutions for people bothered by noise. I don't care what Europeans decide to do, but we don't need the government in the U.S. to interfere. More often than not, the hidden costs of regulations HURT the people they are trying to help.

Here's a scenario: low cost housing doesn't have adequate sound insulation.

Solution: require builders to include sound insulation. Result: low cost housing is no longer low cost, and more people with marginal incomes can't afford a house.

Solution: government subsidizes sound insulation. Result: income taxes and/or property taxes increase to accomodate. Result: more people with marginal incomes can't afford a house either because of the income tax burden OR the property tax burdon (higher property taxes on a more expensive sound proofed house).

Solution: government allows tax break for people upgrading their houses. Result: people are encouraged to upgrade their house. It shouldn't be limited to sound proofing, but also things like new air conditioning and heating units (more efficient), new windows (more efficient), air purification systems, etc. The difference in income taxes with people writing off these expenses in minimal. Meanwhile, the companies doing the upgrades increase revenue dramatically - the taxes balance out. Everyone is happy, more people are employed, and the government can actually stand to make MORE money.

As usual, LOWERING taxes (or, in this case, giving tax breaks) not only helps homeowners but helps employment and generates MORE revenue for the government and makes everybody happy. Regulation or subsidies has the opposite effect.

Re:Rich country?

[gfxguy]

Welcome to the difference between a pure capitalist economy, and a one where some remenants of socialism still remain. The person buying the sub-standard house might not be able to afford a better one? Why shouldn't our tax money be used to improve their standard of living?

Because then they wouldn't be able to afford a house AT ALL.

Re:Rich country?

[Breakfast Pants]

You didn't respond to the poster AT ALL. Giving tax breaks to those who overhaul still doesn't solve the problem of "why punish the person who investigated his purchase first and already accounted for soundproofing in his expenditures." Everytime someone makes a stupid purchase the government should give them a tax break to help equal them out with those who made a good purchase? WHAT?

Re:Rich country?

[drinkypoo]

On one hand, you're right. It's unfair to the individual to expect those who planned well to support those who did not. On the other hand, that's pretty much what society is. It's probably a lot cheaper to soundproof homes (or provide financial incentives to those who will do it) than to, say, restrict cars from these streets which were built not around the automobile, but foot and horse traffic, with the occasionall carriage.

The goal of modern societies is to provide for all its people. Sometimes the most cost-effective way to do this is to give them public welfare, and sometimes it isn't. If you're worried about cost, consider what other methods might have been considered.

A better long-term solution is to encourage people to move away from gasoline-powered automobiles, at least moving to hybrids. Or, they could use MDI's air car, perhaps, or EVs. If you're talking about people who seldom drive very far at all, the short range of such vehicles is rarely going to be any kind of problem to them. I should think that the UK's insanely high petrol prices (though we pay that price in lives, and from our military budget, instead of having people just pay it at the pump, which I think is really quite daft) would have done this already but I guess not. The average displacement of cars in the UK is certainly less than it is in the US, though as the old V8-powered beaters are replaced with four bangers here, that gap is certainly narrowing.

Re:Rich country?

[TGK]

Sarcasm aside, doesn't this have the unfortunate tendancy to drive down land values artificialy? Furthermore, as any SimCity buff can tell you, low land values tend to spread a great deal like mold.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that moving from neighborhoods that predate the automobile to those built on quiet streets that become not so quiet due to changes over time, where do you draw the line? Where does it become the government's problem to compensate and where does it remain the citizen's tough luck?

Obviously the government has the right to aquire property from its citizens should the need arise (tons of legal precidents for that). Should the government be therefore obligated to compensate citizens or to help mitigate the affect of lost property value due to goverment changes to the area? Following from that should the government have the responcibility to zone areas according to noise polution so the commercial area I live next to (which used to contain walk in shops with little or no parking) can't be turned into a parking garage or a car wash?

We're both pointing out the extremes here, which really do have obvious solutions to them. Of course the government should compensate me for noise insulation if they put a 6 lane highway through my back yard. Of course they shouldn't do so if I buy up land next to a six lane highway and build a house on it. The question is the middle ground. Where is the differentiation?

Alternative Traffic

[fastdecade]

About time noise pollution was taken seriously. But I'd question the solution...Instead of just diverting traffic, hopefully they look at reducing noisy types of transport and encouraging more quiet forms ---- e.g. light rail, bikes.

Re:Alternative Traffic

[gnu-generation-one]

"About time noise pollution was taken seriously. But I'd question the solution...Instead of just diverting traffic, hopefully they look at reducing noisy types of transport and encouraging more quiet forms ---- e.g. light rail, bikes."

In case anyone didn't hear about it, they introduced a "congestion charge" for driving into and around London, which has slashed the amount of traffic in the capital, and made it a much nicer, quieter place.

So yes, they have done something towards solving the source problem. Now if only the British people could get over their attitude of "anyone who doesn't own a car is a loser", they we might just get somewhere with the rest of the country.

As to spending money on measuring the noise throughout the land, think back to optimising code? Of course you spend the most money on benchmarking. Otherwise you waste a lot more money solving an irrelevant problem. So yeah, make the noise map first.

Already spending a lot....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sometimes I wish the U.S. government wasn't spending so much trying to build up the military and instead redirect those funds to building up the national infrastructure"

The US government is already spending billions and billions on infrastructure. The problem is that so much of the money is wasted, such as on overpaid union "workers" through scams such as the Davis-Bacon Act, designed just to waste a lot more money on government projects.

Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false

[Dr. Evil]

According to the article, 100 microphones do, and they agree within 1 decibel.

seasonal noise differences

[Savatte]

I hope they take into account the noise levels from different seasons. For instance, around where I live, summer and fall are much louder, simply because of the massive amounts of non-stop construction. And I can personally attest that you can hear a jackhammer from farther away than you can hear a police siren.

Re:Let us outsource it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck it. Fly them over. Let them get run over by drunk drivers at night. It's not like we'd run out. And if we did, then we could out source it to the Chinese. Like when we built our railroad network. And that worked out alright. (Unless you happened to be a chinese railway worker.)

Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false

[thrillseeker]

According to the article, 100 microphones do [say noise comes from traffic], and they agree within 1 decibel.

So why not spend the billions developing quieter traffic? Put it into fuel cells and electric motors, for example.

Data gathering techniques

[The Ape With No Name]

As placing microphones on every building in London or Paris to measure noise was not practical, data on the amount of traffic carried by roads and the noise levels was fed into computers to generate a model of noise levels across the city

And an introductory remote sensing/GIS class would tell you that unless you have a Big Laser In Space(tm) you just take sample in accessible places that reflect both the landscape in general and prominent landscape features after that it is all overlay functions, baby. I am kriging as we speak!

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it really funny that the American Slashdot users always pop up at the first mention of Europe and start posting "funny" comments like yours, yet the vast majority of you have never even left your home state, let alone gone to another country. Apparently ignorance is now something to be proud of these days, which is really very funny until you find yourself listed in the Darwin awards with a genuinely funny story about how you managed to kill yourself through an act of your your own stupidity.

If any of the words I used in this post were too big for you, just ask and I'll do my best not to answer any questions you might have.

It's the peaks which count

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with traffic noise, I would maintain, is not its absolute level (up to a limit of course), but rather the relative difference between minima and maxima.

Example. I would rather live in a tower block looking onto the bvd Peripherique in Paris than in a street-facing apartment in the 5e. Why? Because the sound of traffic on the periph. is fairly constant, whereas if you live in what is generally a quiet street, the sound of some fsking teenager zooming past on a scooter with a tin-can for a silencer will wake you out of any sleep.

The last study done on this concluded that the noise of one scooter crossing Paris at night interrupts the sleep of 250,000 people.

Start by punishing the selfish gits who ride scooters or Harleys. That would eliminate 50% of all complaints about traffic noise.

Re:A thorough understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. If you are in Europe, then you are in a country that is somewhat more socialist than the United States. However, even in Western Europe, most of the economy still remains in the hands of the people, not the state.

Nobody is ideal. The current rulling political party is Labour. The Government has control over some large sections of this countries infastructure. That's Socialist. You're right, it isn't Socialism in the sense of Eastern European communism, but then you appear to be using the Americanism of interchanging Socialism & Communism freely, when in fact they mean very different things here in Europe.

Which ones? Specifically?

I don't know. That's why they're guesses.

Anyway, here are some specifics

Because socialism is all about improving the standard of living for government elites.

Clearly demonstratably false and not even based in reality. Even if the poster could show me a PolSci text with this claim in it, they're still talking bollocks and should know it. Clearly and demonstratably false. Socialism is all about improving society through social reform and support. This includes providing improved housing for the lower classes (Witness the slum clearences of the 50's and 60's). This may or may not cause rises in house prices and better housing at the top of the chain as a side effect, but that is totally irrelevent as to what socialism is "about".

What is wrong with it is that the government meddling ends up pricing the houses higher and higher.

Several years ago the Chancelor handed control of Interest Rates to the Bank of England. A period of unequaled low interest rates and high borrowing has pushed house prices here in the U.K far higher than any EU initiative to provide sound insulation ever could. I've recently purchased a 30 year old 3 bed house with no central heating for 120,000UKP. The lack or presence of sound insulation wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to me.

Marx inspires them to go out and kill tens of millions of people.

Again, crap and the poster knows it. Nowhere does Marx prescribe totalitarian rule or the murder of millions. Just because some bastards claimed Marx as a in influence doesn't mean anything; OBL claims Allah as an "influence" yet the vast majority of Muslims are quick to disagree with him.

All for it

[sbadelt]

Personally, I get annoyed by the sound of a Honda Civic with an open-throat muffler and the constant hammering of Harley's. I'd love to see some enforcement of reasonable noise pollution violations... not just a random smathering of acoustic foam.

Typical Leftist/Collectivist irrational garbage

[Loundry]

Really, how better to dedicate the resources of ones culture than the investigation of the cause/effect and remedy for general, shared problems? Why the hell not? I can think of no better things to investigate.

Because the resources that are being dedicated are being seized at gunpoint. Furthermore, while you may not be able to think of better things to investigate, there may be millions of people who want to exercise their freedom and hard-earned money on what they want exercise it on. What gives your opinions so much priority that they justify looting?

The masses are convinced -- almost without pause -- that spending money on single-serving yogurt-like snacks(ever *made* your own yogurt -- VERY VERY GOOD & EASY), RetiredBoxerBrand electric grills (whats wrong with your stove?), ZXY(TM) Brand $200 shoes, and blah blah blah is a good reward in exchange for my personal effort (the $ youve collected in exchange for work).. I say hogwash.

Sure, it's hogwash. For you. For someone else, it's very important. What makes your tastes better than yours? Are you going to trot out your subjective feelings which is exactly what those who buy $200 Indonesian-made shoes use to justify their tastes? While I think many people spend money on pure junk, I still find them more respectable than I find you because at least their desire to spend money doesn't include taking my money.

If Im going to sacrifice 40hrs of ever week, I damn well want something worth while in exchange for my Cached-Work($).

There is nothing preventing you from doing this in a captialist society. You work, you get paid, and you spend your hard-earned dollars on what you want to spend it on. But that's not what you're describing here, is it? I think what you mean to say is, "If I work in any capacity, then I want the government to seize other people's property and spend it on that which I have decided is Good and Right."

Being the sucker in some capitalist's get-rich scheme, at the expense of the planet (pollution/waste/garbage) is not all that attractive -- but insead of paying for research like this (in taxes) people are usually DrivenByMindControl to buying SomeDamnedGarbage.

And you can choose not to be involed in some capitalist's get-rich "scheme". Can I choose not to have my hard-earned tax dollars go to some leftist's idea of what is moral? No! Why is that not also a "scheme"?

Furthermore, pollution, waste, and garbate do not harm the planet. They harm people.

Where am i going with this? What is more useful? What is the greatest benefit of the product of our collective resources (the above mentioned consumer-garbage) **OR** some peace from the endless noise in a mechanized-industrial city....

And it rears it's ugly head: collective resources In other words, everyting that an individual works to earn actually belongs to busybodies in the state (who are, of course, trying to buy votes and maintain power). Is there any reason at all that this vaunted "noise control" could not be addressed privately?

Stop and think occasionally: "what benefit, at what cost is my decision having to bear on myself and my community?

Your religion has defined private property and free enterprise as "evil". It is from these premises that you weigh these alleged benefits and costs. For example, my buying a George Forman Grill would only be falling prey to an Evil Capitalist's Get Rich Scheme. Well, how many people does that evil capitalist employ? How much business does the evil capitalist give to UPS/FedEx to ship their products, and how many jobs does that take? What about the raw materials that go into making the George Forman grills? That takes jobs, too.

Yes, I believe in society very much, just not in the way that you do. I believe that society functions most morally when people are not forced to live their lives for someone else.

Re:Rich Country? Let's talk about NY City!

[MKalus]

People live in NYC (or any other big city) made a conscious decision to do so. Why should I pay to make their lives more quiet? I didn't contribute to the problem. Why should I pay for the solution?
You want to live there, fine, you pay for it. Put a toll on the roads, whatever, but don't ask me to pay for it. If enough people don't like it, they'll move, and the problem will be solved. If enough people choose to pay an increased toll, you can have your soundproofing.

Most people living in the cities aren't the one who cause the noise pollution. It's the people from the outside who drive into the cities for work or entertainment because they can't get that in their subdivision.

So yes, you are causing it.

Re:Microphones?

[lcsjk]

They're called SOUND LEVEL METERS. However, it is much easier (and cheaper) to setup a microphone and circuit to record data to a flash memory that can be collected and carried back to the lab than to have a rather expensive sound level meter that needs direct connection to a computer for data acquisition and retaining it for later comparison usage.

Professionalism means that I don't have to use three letter "cuss-word" abbreviations to make myself understood.

Re:Rich Country? Let's talk about NY City!

[bombadillo]

"If you really want socialism, move to France or Sweden, and let us know how much happier you are after you're gone."

I lived in Europe for a couple of years and I was quite happy. After coming back to the U.S. I feel a lot less free. If it weren't for my family and love for the town that I grew up in, I would move back to Europe. I also now notice that a lot of Americans are under the impression that America is the only free country in the world and that the rest of the world is backwards and not as advanced.
"Why should I pay to make their lives more quiet? I didn't contribute to the problem. Why should I pay for the solution? You want to live there, fine, you pay for it. "

Taxes should provide solutions that better a society and that are not able to be accomplished by individuals. Did you go to a public school? I am sure there are a lot of rich people out there that don't want to pay for public education. After all they don't send their kids to public schools. Why should they pay for you're education?