|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 20, 2007 19:22:18 GMT -8
I decided to make this thread since this affects all transit projects in LA, not just the Expo Line. In case you're wondering what the thread is for, the proposed budget would take $1 billion from transit projects to pay back state debts. A lot of this money comes from Prop 1B money which was supposed to go to new transit projects, not to fund current transit operations.
If you could please do like me and send messages to the local news stations to tell them to make this a big deal. If more people knew that their votes meant nothing to politicians, they would get very riled up. Let the people know, tell your local stations to let everyone know.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 20, 2007 22:25:56 GMT -8
I won't go into any partisan politics here, but I do have this to say about the transit cuts.
I believe that taking large sums of borrowed money that was promised to be used to fund transportation projects and using them to pay other outstanding state debts is morally unacceptable. Money which belongs to the California State Government belongs to the people of California because our government is democracy, and that is the Law of the Land. Metrolink belongs to the people. Metro belongs to the people. All those trains and busses in their entire fleet belong not to a small group of executives; they belong to the people! That's why OCTA markets the busses "They're your wheels; use them."
Now, the people in our state have approved a bond in which the borrowed money is to be used for transportation projects. Per the presentation of the original ballot measure, that money is "restricted" to transportation projects.
The people at the head of our state table, elected to represent the people of California and defend the Law of the Land, have altered the deal and are using that money for other debts. I think this is what makes people like us, longing for a better transportation system, feel offended by our head host. It's just like asking your son/daughter to take out a student loan and then using chunks of that borrowed money to pay down other household credit card debt. How do you think the child would feel? The bottom line is simple. Don't make promises you cannot keep and do not steal from or lie to your children, the people of the state.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 20, 2007 22:36:56 GMT -8
This should not anger just transportation advocates, but EVERYONE WHO VOTED IN THAT ELECTION. They were lied to, and I don't see the public outrage that should be there. It wasn't even the main story on the LA Times (although it was at least on the front page). It's a shame, and it's terrible for people of my age who have just been given the right to vote. If they see this happening, they what's the point in voting?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 21, 2007 6:04:19 GMT -8
As newly-appointed Metro Board Chair Pam O'Connor said yesterday morning, this really damages the credibility and ability of Sacramento to create a new bonding or tax measure to raise revenues in the future. Until now, things were on their way to getting built and funded, but the voters continue to see things yanked away from transportation a mere months after they were approved by the voters.
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 21, 2007 10:18:45 GMT -8
now here's an idea I can get behind.
I have sensed a lot of misdirected anger on this board lately, and I think some of my previous comments have been misinterpreted. I do apologize for any misunderstandings; but my previous point still holds: the education lobby isn't the enemy. they're succeeding at tasks where we have failed, and pushing them down to pull ourselves up isn't going to work.
but an attack on the political system itself has merit- an attack on the politicians who have allowed this to happen, who have played with the public trust, who have robbed Peter to pay Paul. I'm not entirely crazy about being forced into this position, because I prefer to offer solutions than to offer venom, but it's certainly something that needs to be brought up and called attention to.
I don't harbor any illusions that we will get the money back immediately, but we need to prepare for the future, because we do have the law on our side (so to speak).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 21, 2007 10:47:26 GMT -8
Is there any way to sue the state over something like this? I mean, I guess that's something for the long term. The first thing we need to do is tell people what is happening with their money.
I heard that Schwarzenegger did not approve this budget because he sided with the Dems. I guess we still have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 21, 2007 11:59:16 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, I'm surprised that our Mayor or his transportation Deputy hasn't said anything about this. Especially considering he "lobbied" to get these funds into the Prop ballots.
Is anyone else on this board wondering the same thing?
Maybe he has too much on his mind right now like how to save face from his moral infadelity. But I know if I was the mayor I would be spinning that around and use these cut threats as an opportunity to turn things around.
His silence on this is rather deafening right now.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 21, 2007 12:19:47 GMT -8
I had never thought of it, but it is very strange. What would compel him to say nothing?
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 21, 2007 12:23:18 GMT -8
there's an old political theory which states that the best time to announce anything is early in the week. if you want to bury something, do it on the weekend
*shrug* give Antonio until Monday and then pester him about it.
as for a lawsuit... sure, you get the nails and I'll make the jell-o ;D
seriously though, if I'm reading the law correctly, this isn't illegal. there's a lot of legal loopholes in 1A and 1B that they can hide behind. wait a while and see if the money returns. in theory, money borrowed from 1B is supposed to be returned with interest.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 21, 2007 12:27:45 GMT -8
James, That is true.
But the irony to this is this was first leaked out at the end of Last week BEGINNING of this past week. Hence why I thought it was strange he hasn't said anything on this.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 21, 2007 12:28:08 GMT -8
If the deficit is being filled with transportation dollars next year, then what's going to be different next year? The only thing we can do is vote for politicians who will actually do what we want because this fiasco only proves that our votes on propositions mean absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 22, 2007 0:07:15 GMT -8
gah-dammit, I absolutely HATE this budget crap. I really do.
every time I talk about it or think about it, I get all jumpy and angry and frustrated and I've probably accidentally pissed off everybody on this board with my opinions- well, on the other hand, they are my opinions and maybe it's better that I'm frustrated and angry rather than apathetic like most people.
deep down, I still believe in the power of government to actually do amazing things. the evidence of that can be seen in our aqueducts and our freeways and those footprints on the moon (happy belated anniversary, BTW); and maybe that makes me naive, but at least I'm not some libertarian anarchist like Wendell Cox.
it should be so simple: we pay taxes, we should get services and a little deficit isn't such a bad thing. if we want more services, we pay more. if funds end up flowing from the haves to the have-nots, that should be considered an added bonus.
instead we get ten million little "funding formulas" that were put into place because we have two political parties "not doing anything"... well, that's not entirely true, both parties are working extremely hard to row in opposite directions; and instead of cutting waste, we've cut services- and let's be honest here, we could trim all the fat in the world and the books still wouldn't balance because the other side of the coin is that: our nation has stupidly given fat tax breaks to people who don't deserve them; oops, I probably just pissed off somebody again. sorry.
ultimately, if we want a European-style transit system, we're going to have to deal with a European-style gas tax. bond measures are crutches, and as we've recently seen, broken crutches at that.
(did I mention how much I hate talking about the budget? well, I've said my piece, I'm quitting... for now ^^;; )
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 22, 2007 9:12:43 GMT -8
What's most disturbing about this budget process is that the public is basically unaware that the completion of the full Expo Line and other transit projects are at risk. I've been talking to others, and they don't realize the impact of this $1.3 billion taken away. And, I agree with jerard about the mayor not saying something. We should bomblast the mayor's office with e-mails and maybe he'll get back on the trains and/or roads to push Sacramento to accept transit projects (like he did w/ the 405 widening). If he's really transit-friendly as I believe, he should be communicating this to the citizens.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jul 22, 2007 9:31:59 GMT -8
Would these cuts threaten the Eastside Goldline ? Because from a political standpoint the Eastside Goldline seems to get alot more share of publicity and civil rights hoopla.
The Expo Line hasn't made that much press, and the mayor was never fully behind that as much as he was for the Eastside, his powerbase. Also, we are talking about a mayor on the defensive here, Antonio is struggling to stay afloat, after all his recent failures...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 22, 2007 12:37:10 GMT -8
No, the Eastside Light Rail is fully funded, but the $315 million for Expo from the state was pulled back at the last second from this year's budget. Mayor Villaraigosa fought for its inclusion to the CTC with Zev Yaroslavsky, so I have to give him credit. Unfortunately, our Mayor's political star isn't as bright as it was a few months ago.
...and I'm sorry, James, but if the Expo Line's funding and the spillover funding and other mass transit funding gone to transportation/mass transit as the voters demanded, the cuts would have gone somewhere else or we would have gotten into more debt. I could argue that some more debt is needed, but the state's debt/bonding capacity isn't without limits.
The Democratic Legislature made it clear that education wasn't to be touched. Not a penny.
With 45-50% of all of our budget devoted to education since the voters approved that horrible and rigid policy a few years ago (and it's not like education is being held to spending in a cost-efficient manner), it really is the education lobby that tells the Democratic and GOP leadership to cut transportation...and, in particular, mass transit.
A $140 billion budget means that $65-70 billion went to education, and both gas tax and bonding revenues for the $315 million for Expo and $55 million for high speed rail were sliced away because of our current domination in Sacramento by those whose support of transportation is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Anyone on this board can be an apologist for the mega-libertarian, anti-city and anti-transit paradigm of the GOP leadership, or an apologist for the education-lobby-owns-us-even-if-the-lobby's-record-is-dismal, lip-service-only-for-the-environment, transportation-is-last paradigm of the Democratic leadership, but both groups are apologists and they're WRONG.
Morally, financially, ethically...they're both WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 22, 2007 17:28:05 GMT -8
here's an idea I haven't heard much about lately: restoring the vehicle license fee.
I know what you're thinking: it's another one of those sacred cows that nobody will touch for fear of getting eaten alive by the Church of Howard Jarvis. fair enough.
but ask yourself: how large of a statewide budget hole would we have if we restored the fee to pre-2003 levels?
or if that idea doesn't grab you, how about this: there are a pair of bills in the state legislature that would raise vehicle fees by a minimal amount for the Bay Area and for the San Joaquin Valley in order to pump money into their local transit budgets. why not for Los Angeles?
it's not a perfect solution, but it would be better than participating in the annual tug of war over our incredible shrinking state budget.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 22, 2007 19:09:45 GMT -8
Those are some very good ideas, but I suspect that the only really sufficient way to get the money needed (billions for overdue freeway, road and rail projects) will be to either raise the gas tax at the state level or raise the sales tax at the county level.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 22, 2007 20:48:04 GMT -8
Those are some very good ideas, but I suspect that the only really sufficient way to get the money needed (billions for overdue freeway, road and rail projects) will be to either raise the gas tax at the state level or raise the sales tax at the county level. you're right, of course, and I would fully support such measures, but I wasn't sure how others would react. I figure that even incremental steps would help, which is why I brought that up.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 24, 2007 21:49:34 GMT -8
The TTC Newsletter posted contact information of members in the Senate for anybody interested in participating in the transit fund debate: How You Can Help: You can still call your state Senator and express your desire to see all of the Spillover directed to public transit operations. The following members are important to contact: Don Perata 916-651-4009 Sac. District 510-286-1333; Speaker Fabian Núñez 916-319-2046, District 213-620-4646; Alex Padilla 916-651-4020, District 818-901-5588; Bob Margett 916-651-4029, District 626-914-5046; Alan Lowenthal 916-651-4027, District 562-495-4766; Jeff Denham 916-651-4012, District 209-726-5495; Bob Dutton 916-651-4031; Dave Cogdill 916-651-4014, District 209-599-8540; Gil Cedillo 916-651-4022, District 213-612-9566. Source: www.thetransitcoalition.us/NewsLetterWeb/NL20070723a.htm
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 4, 2007 13:09:54 GMT -8
Would it be reasonable to think of repealing the gas tax, and replacing it with one that would be protected from this continual raiding by the state government. Or if not that, opting for an county gas tax that guarantees that funds will stay and help this region. It seems like the politicians in Sacramento are indifferent to the consequences we suffer when the state is not aggressively funding mass transit in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 4, 2007 13:45:41 GMT -8
Interesting idea, except that we cannot trust any of our local policitians any more then the Sacramento politicians. They all raise taxes promising one thing and then delivering nothing.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 4, 2007 15:31:12 GMT -8
Would it be reasonable to think of repealing the gas tax, and replacing it with one that would be protected from this continual raiding by the state government. Or if not that, opting for an county gas tax that guarantees that funds will stay and help this region. It seems like the politicians in Sacramento are indifferent to the consequences we suffer when the state is not aggressively funding mass transit in Los Angeles. A county gas tax would be a good idea, although I don't think the county has legal authority to raise a gas tax (I could be wrong about that, but am pretty sure that is true). Somehow we need to get a gas excise tax that is indexed to inflation so it automatically increases as time goes on and with this there needs to be an ironclad no raiding provision in there as well. This budget deal is a mess. I don't really blame the Republicans for trying to balance the budget, but I do blame them for taking $4B out of the coffers every year by reducing the car property tax. When they did that they made the State even more reliant on income taxes, which is why everything fluctuates so much. Property taxes are reliable and steady and CA has very little of this. I don't see anyway this is going to be fixed anytime soon. Anyone know the status of the Long Range Metro Plan. It is due now, but haven't seen it. I want to know the next step now. AV needs to get going on transit again.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 4, 2007 19:20:32 GMT -8
The county might not able to raise a county gas tax, but it can raise a sales tax if it somehow crosses the threshold of 67% voter approval for it. Should the "right" combination of transportation-smart and politically-smart projects be put out there for the voters to approve, this might very well pass:
Expo Line, Crenshaw Line, Downtown Connector, Fairfax Extension of the Purple Line, Green Line to LAX, Gold Line to Azusa/Irwindale, I-5 widening and I-710 upgrades, etc.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Aug 4, 2007 23:17:51 GMT -8
Whether it's a car tax, sales tax, gas tax, property tax, container fees, or other... does it put California at a disadvantage economically ? There are many states and foreign countries where businesses can flee. But if we don't do something about our transportation mess, it will hurt the economy too.
I think a tax on oil profits is the key. Oil companies are reaping insane profits off of market speculation and intentionally scarce refinery capacity. Everyone should be on board on this issue, and let's make it clear, the funds will go towards mass transit... not "alternative fuel research".
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 5, 2007 0:26:33 GMT -8
I think a tax on oil profits is the key. How could this be done? As far as I know, the only two major petroleum companies still headquartered in California are Chevron/Texaco and Occidental. How could oil profits be taxed for out-of-state companies?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Aug 5, 2007 6:08:09 GMT -8
Tax them if they want to operate in California.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 5, 2007 9:51:56 GMT -8
The oil companies have long been abandoning California. They love an excuse to pull out and laugh their ass off at our gas station lines.
The answer is to pass an initiative mandating that a certain portion of the California budget go to transit & highways, much like the schools have done. I know this is a terrible idea, but look how it has protected the public schools from any meaningful budget discipline.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 5, 2007 10:54:44 GMT -8
The oil companies have long been abandoning California. They love an excuse to pull out and laugh their ass off at our gas station lines. The answer is to pass an initiative mandating that a certain portion of the California budget go to transit & highways, much like the schools have done. I know this is a terrible idea, but look how it has protected the public schools from any meaningful budget discipline. If you saw the hoops that they have to jump through to keep refineries running or even to make improvements then you would understand why. But Chevron in El Segundo is making a huge investment to expand their production ability. Some of the other local refineries are making similar, but smaller investments. So your statement is false.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 5, 2007 10:58:02 GMT -8
I would agree with kingsfan at this point, although an initiative of this sort did fail a few years ago. It really depends on how upset voters are with transportation dollars constantly being robbed into the general fund.
At this point, the big question to be answered is whether businesses are so upset about traffic and its affect on businesses that a sales tax increase would be something more likely to make them stay so long as it's spent on quality transportation projects.
Please take off your blue state or red state hats when considering transportation, which is as nonpartisan as an issue can be...and put on your Golden State hat. A tax or bond measure that requires everyone to contribute for something that everyone would benefit is probably the smartest way to go.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 5, 2007 11:33:34 GMT -8
I totally agree - Education is important...but at least half of the money is being wasted. Teachers spend half of there time preparing students for testing, not teaching. When our infrastructure starts to crumble, people will realize that this education push has stolen all funding from the state. Transit seems to always take the hit because most people don't care about it. But they will care when true total gridlock hits...and those days are soon coming. In the meantime the glacial speed of mass transit creation is all the MTA can accomplish.
It is obvious that the State will not help Los Angeles meet its mass transit needs. Only the city and county (and the federal government) can solve our transit problems.
|
|