|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 2, 2009 12:17:45 GMT -8
Per the LA Times editorial: "In the short term, we urge state officials and the plaintiffs in the transit case, the California Transit Assn., to reach a settlement in which the state promises to end its raids on gas tax funds but doesn't have to repay the money it has already seized."
LA Times - Editorial October 2, 2009
A tax train wreck Sacramento must stop its habit of raiding dedicated funds to balance the budget.
If you thought California's budget had problems already, just wait. A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, along with rulings to come on more than a dozen lawsuits filed after the Legislature's highly creative budget-balancing act last summer, threaten to divert billions of dollars from vital state services.
Wednesday's decision concerned a case that began even before the current budget crisis hit. In 2007, the Legislature raided $1.2 billion in state gasoline tax funds that were supposed to be dedicated to mass transit, and used the money instead to repay transportation loans and pay for other items normally covered by the general fund. Transit advocates sued, and an appeals court ruled in their favor. That's no surprise, because the money grab was legally very questionable -- voters have repeatedly opted to set aside gas tax money for specific transit purposes. The state lost its final appeal when the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
It's unclear what will happen now. The state may be forced to come up with more than $3 billion for transit agencies -- the money from 2007, plus $2 billion that was diverted last year and this year. That would mean slashing other programs even further than they have been already. Should we take the money from schools? Health programs for the indigent? Prisons? What's more, the transit case may be just the tip of the iceberg. Teachers, doctors, state workers, redevelopment agencies and even Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) have sued the state. The price tag could be huge.
The underlying problem is twofold. First, California voters are fond of dedicating tax money to specific programs, apparently because they don't trust the Legislature to do the job properly. That means that when times are bad, as they are this year, lawmakers can't reallocate money to keep crucial services funded. At least not without getting sued. That brings up the second part of the problem: To balance the budget during a crisis, lawmakers intentionally raid dedicated funds. Their assumption is that any lawsuits will take years to wend their way through the courts, and by the time they're resolved, the state might be in a position to repay the money. This is a crazy way to run a state.
In the short term, we urge state officials and the plaintiffs in the transit case, the California Transit Assn., to reach a settlement in which the state promises to end its raids on gas tax funds but doesn't have to repay the money it has already seized. In the long term, California's taxing and spending structure must be reformed to end these absurd shell games.
Maybe I should steal a few hundred million $ from the state. Then when I get caught, I will agree that I will stop stealing any more money. You all can then join me in the Cayman Islands for a few months of extended LA transit discussion, while sitting on the beach drinking Coronas...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 4, 2009 11:25:07 GMT -8
This "solution" from the L.A. Times is absolutely as unhelpful as one can get. Only when the rest of the state's competing budgetary lobbies get zinged will this truly, absolutely NEVER happen again. Letting the state get away with the previous theft only encourages it to do so again in the future.
That $2-3 billion could go into high-speed rail, Metrolink, bus service, even towards some of the rail projects that L.A. County is working on...but transportation has to stop being the afterthought of all budgetary prioritizations.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 16, 2009 17:03:25 GMT -8
Tunnels and Trenches: Can You Dig It? (CityWatch, 10/16/09)
By Ken Alpern
I suppose we’re all a bit hypocritical at times, choosing double standards either for ourselves or for our friends, but it’s amazing how some of us opt for a double standard that is so morally or logically out of touch that it crosses all lines of propriety and common sense. Take, for example, the tunnels and trenches we’ve been asked to dig just to please either a political entity or a privileged neighborhood.
1) The Wilshire Subway:
Historians will note that this was planned for either a subway or a freeway over the past 100 years, and the wealthiest neighborhoods in and around Beverly Hills were amongst the loudest opponents of both. Fortunately, traffic is so horrendous and mobility is so limited that everyone’s realizing that we’ve no choice but to get this done—despite the gigantic cost that wouldn’t have been there had we done it in a timely fashion.
Of course, Beverly Hills will be amongst the last community to be directly included in the Wilshire Subway because the Santa Monica Blvd. routing to connect the Red and Purple Lines won’t be started until the Subway reaches west of the 405 freeway—and the money for that is among the hardest and hugest obstacles that Metro now faces.
Still, I commend Beverly Hills for coming around, and for advocating so fiercely to pass Prop. R. Yet they’ll need another, perhaps more local, funding effort to get their direct Santa Monica Blvd. Red-Purple Line connection within the next 10-20 years.
Rather than scald and scold the voters there for previous generations of obstruction, I can remind them that they can afford to fast-track their own Subway connection if they have the political will.
2) The South Pasadena 710 Freeway Gap:
This falls right into line behind the Wilshire Subway for an example of a wealthy neighborhood limiting its own mobility, but in particular this is an outrageous example of abusing the legal system for over half a century in order to establish a privileged neighborhood at the expense of the greater region.
Yes, South Pasadenans are correct in that a putative $850 million freeway extension to connect the current 710 gap from Alhambra to Pasadena would dramatically impact their city—but hasn’t every city with a freeway endured such an impact? Do South Pasadenans use the freeway system that came at the expense of all their neighbors.
Fortunately, Governor Schwarzeneggar (for whatever motivation) vetoed the bill requiring the 710 gap be connected by a $3.6 billion tunnel, saving the taxpayers up to $3 billion in unnecessary costs for a freeway that ALWAYS remains available for construction the way it was originally intended to be built.
Until then, that $3 billion—whether it’s Prop. R dollars, state dollars or federal dollars—can now be freed up to pay for other critical projects, such as the 710 freeway south to the harbor, or the many upgrades and widenings of the 60, 10, 210, and 605 freeways and the intersections that connect them.
However, if South Pasadenans are willing to shoulder at least half the extra $3 billion to pay for the tunnel option, then perhaps we should all meet them halfway because this connection is one of the best mobility and environmental projects that have been proposed.
South Pasadenans should remember, however, that while they have more money and lawyers than the rest of us they are NOT higher lifeforms, and the double standard they’ve forced on the rest of us is morally, legally and economically something THEY caused.
3) The Green Line/LAX Trench
Closer to home, we now know this Green Line connection up Aviation Blvd., which the FAA demanded and still does demand for decades, is a whopping $350-400 million. Perhaps Metro knew what the heck it was doing when it didn’t connect the Green Line to LAX back in the 1990’s after all?
Anyway, San Jose and other airports don’t have these trenches required and they do just fine with airport-adjacent light rail. This trench might have seemed like a nice idea before just to get the FAA off our backs, but now I think it’s only fair to ask Rep. Maxine Waters and the rest of Congress to get the federal government to pay for this unfunded mandate.
The establishment of a LAX/Green Line/Crenshaw Line connection at Century/Aviation, with a Green/Crenshaw line link to Aviation/Imperial, will be a huge boon to the transit-dependent Mid-City and South L.A. Communities, and we shouldn’t have to rob other projects like the Downtown Connector and the Wilshire Subway in order to pay for this trench.
4) The Expo Line
I’ve written a long two-part article about the challenges of the West L.A. portion of this line—and the complete lack of mitigation and underrepresentation of West L.A. residents that I blame on the City of L.A. more than I ever can reasonably blame the Expo Authority. One key issue, however, is the trench that’s been proposed by neighboring residents for Overland, Westwood and Sepulveda.
So long as traffic, tree removals, road widenings, overdevelopment and other environmental impacts will be so huge and unprecedented (compared to other neighborhoods in L.A., Culver City and Santa Monica by the line) and unmitigated, I think that there will be many lawsuits that could and should be avoided but which are now inevitable. Very sad, indeed.
In addition, however, to the need to get Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz on the Expo Authority Board to both facilitate the line and mitigate for the neighbors, the lack of inclusion of the trench (and alternatives such as lowering Overland Blvd below the tracks) in the Final EIR as potential options will delay this line for years because the neighbors and region don’t have all the facts and options to choose from, or the opportunity to kick in local funds for a mitigated line.
There are technical and legal reasons to not pursue such a trench, not the least of which is another $400 million or more cost that will delay the Wilshire Subway’s extension to Century City, but so long as the facts are suppressed I have no doubt that the hype and the fears will be promoted…and a mitigated compromise will be delayed, in turn delaying the Expo Line to Santa Monica.
…and, of course, as time goes by, we’ll just have to wait and see if it’ll be the Wilshire Subway, not the Expo Line, that is the mass transit line that reaches the Westside first just because the City of L.A. didn’t plan for and mitigate for its residents the way that Santa Monica and Culver City are doing for their own stakeholders.
(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 23, 2009 3:09:19 GMT -8
File this under "Theres more than one way to raid transit funds, even when the courts just ruled against it"...The $1 billion in mass transit and other transportation money the governor will propose raiding is supposed to be off limits to the state for plugging budget gaps. Court rulings have declared previous attempts to get at it illegal. The administration will seek to get around those rulings through a complex gas tax swap. As part of the scheme, an existing sales tax on gasoline would be eliminated and, at the same time, a new per-gallon excise tax would be imposed. The price at the pump would drop about 5 cents per gallon The shift would gut a voter-approved measure, Proposition 42, that protects how current gas taxes are spent. Public transit -- buses, rail and other forms of mass transportation -- now receives 20% of all gas sales tax. After the tax swap, that requirement would disappear. The tax swap could also cost schools -- as it would result in the share of tax revenues they are entitled to under state law dropping by more than $800 million. RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 23, 2009 10:13:43 GMT -8
Not exactly a good day in transit in LA.
To hear about the Governor trying to squeeze public transit again is a little depressing. He might have some chance of success in passing this in that he can tout a reduced gas tax.
Another possibly fatal accident on Metrolink.
Increasing chatter on a lawsuit to stop Expo Phase II. Anyone have a feel for their chance of success of slowing down Phase II because of this?
It is all a little depressing just a couple of days before Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 23, 2009 11:54:05 GMT -8
It is absurd and can't be legal(?). Restoring the funds will be impossible, so he will probably get what he wants at least once. He already took the funds away, so it is not like we will be getting any less. I am sure if he could he would rob our county taxes. Now that would be very very BAD. The Expo line and every rail line in LA has been a battle for every inch since I can remember (I go back as far as 1992), nothing new there. I doubt any lawsuit will succeed in any way for Expo II, but it may slow things down a bit, but that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 23, 2009 14:25:02 GMT -8
Well, Just when you thought it couldn't get any kookier, it does. Here is a link to a story about an umbrella group of organizations that are trying to collect signatures for a 2010 ballot initiative that would prohibit raids on future transit funds: www.savelocalservices.com/node/39Here is the interesting part: "Prohibit the state from borrowing or taking gasoline taxes which are dedicated to transportation and transit improvements and services, including the state sales tax on gasoline (Prop 42 funds), and the Highway User Tax on gasoline (HUTA)." Someone needs to let these guys know that the governator's plan is to *cancel* the gas tax, and then 5 minutes later slap on an excise tax that goes directly to the state and that completely eliminates all transit funding. Seems as though the Governor is one step ahead of the transit advocates in the ongoing chess game. Should make for some interesting reading in the papers over the next couple months if nothing else. RT
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 23, 2009 23:01:55 GMT -8
Rubbertoe, perhaps we could pass a new ballot measure that includes the gas tax directly. How about 50% for transit, 50% for road (maintenance), and indexing the gas tax to (energy) inflation?
A land-value tax on transit-adjacent properties would be an even fairer and more stable funding source for transit operations, but I'm not sure if it could be done. In theory, land owners within 1 mile from a transit stop would pay per assessed land value (to encourage higher-density development; the tax would be just as high on an empty lot as on a high-rise), with the rate increasing closer to the transit stop or station. This would be funding transit the Huntington way; developers and property owners who benefit from transit would subsidize it.
Increasing the gas tax is nice, but we will need an alternative if everyone starts driving Volts and Teslas... or starts taking transit!
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 24, 2009 7:31:11 GMT -8
Not exactly a good day in transit in LA. To hear about the Governor trying to squeeze public transit again is a little depressing. He might have some chance of success in passing this in that he can tout a reduced gas tax. It is a little depressing just before Christmas. Transit Advocates aren't going to be lied to or will they roll over this time. Here is some reaction to the governor's latest shell game: Schwarzenegger's plan to again raid transit funds angers rider advocatesThe governor's proposal to help balance California's budget, which would cut as much as $1 billion from public transportation, could trigger more route closures and fare hikes for buses and trains.By Shane Goldmacher and Ari B. Bloomekatz Los Angeles Times: Thursday, December 24, 2009 Reporting from Los Angeles and Sacramento Mass transit boosters reacted angrily Wednesday to news that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to tap public transportation funds again in an effort to balance California's budget. The governor's latest plan, a complex gas-tax swap that officials familiar with the plan said would shrink transit funds by as much as $1 billion, could trigger another round of route closures and fare hikes for buses and rail lines across the state, transit advocates said. It follows a state Supreme Court ruling in June that declared years of administration raids on transit money illegal. "The governor apparently continues to hate public transportation," said Bart Reed, executive director of the nonprofit Transit Coalition, which advocates for better transportation in Southern California. "Other counties have been cutting service left and right and jacking up fares and L.A. County is sort of the last man standing. Cutting service is the next step." Erin Steva, transportation advocate for the nonprofit California Public Interest Research Group, said transit riders have already suffered through service reductions and higher fares. In Orange County, she said, bus routes have been scaled back substantially. Fare hikes were already on the table for Metrolink. In Northern California, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system raised fares and cut its service by 25% during off-peak hours. "This could have serious implications," Speva said of the Schwarzenegger plan. "It is tying the hands of transit agencies at a time they have serious budget problems. Many could be forced to consider more fare hikes and service cuts." Marc Littman, spokesman for the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority said his agency in the past has received roughly $50 million to $100 million annually from the state for operations -- funds that could be in jeopardy. "We're barely treading water" now, Littman said. Projects such as the widening of parts of the 405 or other freeways could be at risk, MTA officials said. L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member, called the governor's proposal "legally questionable," "wrong-headed" and "poor public policy." "The fact that this scheme is likely to be overturned by the court, as it has in the past, means that the proposal itself has no validity," he added. The administration declined to comment on the proposal. Schwarzenegger will officially unveil his budget plan to close California's projected $20.7-billion deficit in early January. Transit advocates, joined by local government groups, announced Wednesday that they are starting to gather signatures for a measure, aimed for the November 2010 ballot, to further wall off their money from Sacramento. The California Supreme Court seemingly put an end to the transit raids only months ago, ordering the state to repay the more than $3 billion in gasoline sales taxes that it had taken since 2007. Instead, the Schwarzenegger administration has crafted a plan to again take the funds -- just in a different way. The governor would eliminate the sales tax on gas and, at the same time, impose a new per-gallon excise tax. Drivers would pay about 5 cents less per gallon at the pump. The excise tax would not be subject to voter-approved spending requirements for public transit. "It sounds like an end run around our litigation and our court's decision," said Josh Shaw, the lawsuit's plaintiff and executive director of the California Transit Assn. The governor's proposal would amount to a fundamental restructuring of how California funds transportation. Protections for highway funds would remain in place; those for public transportation would not. "What you're really doing is funding the roads -- and God knows they need it -- but it's not a balanced transportation program," said Randy Rentschler, spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area. Some transit advocates accused the governor -- who has traveled the globe burnishing his environmental credentials, most recently at the climate change summit in Copenhagen last week -- of hypocrisy. Viable mass transit helps curb greenhouse gas emissions by moving people out from behind the wheel. "It would be a massive step backwards," Shaw said.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 24, 2009 11:49:37 GMT -8
The governor's proposal to help balance California's budget, which would cut as much as $1 billion from public transportation...
Not to be cynical here or anything, but we (transit advocates) are now in the same boat as everyone else who gets money from the state. That being schools, bondholders, prisons, Caltrans, parks, welfare, you name it. The state is $20 billion short of what it needs to pay the bills, and the situation is so desperate that the governor is going to ask the Feds for $8 billion, which combined with another $12 billion in the usual accounting gimmicks could keep the lights on here for another 6 months, till it becomes apparent that the gimmicks didn't work, just like they didn't last year, and we are in the same situation 6 months from now. No matter what.
There are only two ways to solve the problem. Increase revenue or decrease spending. I'll leave out the possibility of the federal government coming to our rescue for the moment, as that would set a bad precedent, and there would be 49 other states lining up right behind us should that happen...
Anyway, they are not going to raise taxes, PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD. Besides the usual argument that it doesn't make sense to raise taxes during a recession, which I tend to generally actually agree with, but would argue this is a special case of sorts, there is the group of California Senate members who are apparently in a suicide cult who refuse to consider the possibility of raising taxes no matter what. So the only option left is to cut, which they did some of last year but that didn't get us near where we need to be now, and those cuts were EASY compared to what needs to be done now, since the new cuts will be on top of the old ones.
The state is basically engaged in a slow motion shutdown. Now, we could have an entire political discussion about whether we should 1) raise revenue, or 2) cut spending, along with the myriad ways that either of those options could play out. I'll leave that to the political discussion boards since we are primarily concerned about transit here and not politics, and we apparently stand to lose $1 billion of funding.
My point here is basically that when the state is in such bad financial shape, the $1 billion in transit is just another thing that can be cut. Yes, buses may stop running and people won't have any way to get to work, but they will also be letting prisoners out of jail sooner, reducing the school year to the absolute limit, giving more pay free "holidays" to state workers, closing DMV offices sooner, etc, etc, etc.
Forget about the state being able to pony up money for transit anytime soon. If we want to keep the buses and trains running we are going to have to pay for it ourselves (LA County). Someone needs to figure out pretty quick how much is needed here in the county to offset ALL state transit funding. Then figure out what combination of sales tax and gas tax that could be levied to replace it all. And make sure that Arnold and his cohorts up in Sacramento don't know where the safe is that we are keeping all that money in, otherwise it will be "borrowed" like the current $1 billion will be borrowed and/or erased and/or legislated out of existence.
End of rant.
RT
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 24, 2009 13:28:12 GMT -8
Your rant is noted, but the question of whether each department can have the room for the same amount of cuts is in order for asking.
As I see it, the main two bloated departments are:
1) Education (middle level bureaucrats, tenured teachers who even liberal, traditionally-supportive advocates of districts like the LAUSD are admitting could have, and should have, been cut years ago)
2) Pensions--in short, we've overpaid valued employees of the state more than we can afford in a process that gave away the store over the past 5-10 years
Yes, transportation will be cut but that is one of the few things that keeps our economy alive and which is one of the main things the public supports. The public does NOT think that the level of cutting transportation is the same as cutting education, social services and pensions.
Something to consider as we try to figure out which departments to cut more than others; I'm a parent who will pay privately more for education but will at least enjoy the knowledge of my money going directly to my children's benefit.
...and then, of course, the awful and ugly question of paying for those not legally here (and their employers, who are the real villains) must be also factored into the complex equation of what got us into this mess.
This recession is definitely something that would have gotten us scrambling for painful cuts regardless of past indiscretions, but these past indiscretions are clearly the reason why this is all so especially painful...and we must be adult enough to ask the tough questions in order to achieve the even tougher answers.
Were the education, pension and other governmental reforms occur, I think the willingness to raise taxes by California taxpayers would go up.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 24, 2009 18:03:19 GMT -8
2) Pensions--in short, we've overpaid valued employees of the state more than we can afford in a process that gave away the store over the past 5-10 years www.senseoncents.com/2009/05/californias-100000-club/Over 5,000 in California draw over $100,000 per year in pensions. They must have worked one helluva lot harder than I did. So where is the effort to get this reformed? Why is the headline that transit is going to get cut $1 billion, and not that the public employees will be paid the private sector equivalent, or that someone is going to take a closer look at whether anyone who is retired should be pulling $100k? RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 25, 2009 7:44:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 25, 2009 19:43:25 GMT -8
Your rant is noted, but the question of whether each department can have the room for the same amount of cuts is in order for asking. As I see it, the main two bloated departments are: 1) Education (middle level bureaucrats, tenured teachers who even liberal, traditionally-supportive advocates of districts like the LAUSD are admitting could have, and should have, been cut years ago) 2) Pensions--in short, we've overpaid valued employees of the state more than we can afford in a process that gave away the store over the past 5-10 years Yes, transportation will be cut but that is one of the few things that keeps our economy alive and which is one of the main things the public supports. The public does NOT think that the level of cutting transportation is the same as cutting education, social services and pensions. Something to consider as we try to figure out which departments to cut more than others; I'm a parent who will pay privately more for education but will at least enjoy the knowledge of my money going directly to my children's benefit. ...and then, of course, the awful and ugly question of paying for those not legally here (and their employers, who are the real villains) must be also factored into the complex equation of what got us into this mess. This recession is definitely something that would have gotten us scrambling for painful cuts regardless of past indiscretions, but these past indiscretions are clearly the reason why this is all so especially painful...and we must be adult enough to ask the tough questions in order to achieve the even tougher answers. Were the education, pension and other governmental reforms occur, I think the willingness to raise taxes by California taxpayers would go up. Couldn't agree more. Pension reform is definately needed in the State more than anything. Also, the State is too realiant on income taxes for its revenue, which fluctuates wildly. Unfortunately, we never seem to focus on the long-term ideals like Pension Reform and getting the services the citizens deserve out of the bureacracy. There should be an overall compromise that not everyone will be happy with. For instance, allow some off-shore oil drilling but also institute an oil severance tax that all other oil producing states have. Instead we get these silly gimmicks that just bite us year after year, because they aren't really fixes. It is sad to say that cutting public transit is an easy choice given what is out there and even though transit advocates will fight it, there is a good chance it may come about given the scope of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 25, 2009 23:51:08 GMT -8
I agree with your assessment as well, but so long as Joe/Jane taxpayer are treated as lower lifeforms than the public servants, who supposedly works for that taxpayer, things will not change. Fortunately, I think that things are so bad that right now the usual excuses for stiffing the taxpayer can't be papered over any more.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 17, 2010 7:27:13 GMT -8
From the LA Times today, the Governor vetoes transit legislation: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget17-2010mar17,0,3161739.story Here is the most interesting part concerning why he vetoed the bill: The centerpiece of the legislation Schwarzenegger said he would reject Tuesday is a complicated change in the way California taxes gasoline, allowing lawmakers to divert money from mass transit to pay down the deficit.
Schwarzenegger said he would reject the lawmakers' gasoline tax plan because it differed from the proposal he first made in January. Schwarzenegger's plan would have lowered gas taxes by 5 cents per gallon. The plan Democrats pushed through the Legislature would keep gas taxes at their current level.
Instead, the Democratic plan had left some gas tax money in the state budget for public transit. The governor's plan eliminated it.
"I cannot sign this flawed legislation," Schwarzenegger wrote.Apparently, leaving any money in the state budget for transit constitutes "flawed legislation" these days RT
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 18, 2010 19:40:44 GMT -8
Arnold is perhaps the worst govenor in he State's history. I can say I never voted for him, or the recall effort.
Any actor that wishes to run for State office, like the govenorship, will need to defend themself against opponents using Arnold as an example.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 23, 2010 6:27:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 23, 2010 9:34:43 GMT -8
Unless I am reading it wrong they agreed to eliminate $1.1 billion in funding and leave $400 million. The original plan eliminated all funding for mass transit while this plan eliminates over 2/3 of it.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Mar 25, 2010 8:37:44 GMT -8
TEXT OF LETTER GOVERNOR SENT TO LEGISLATURE UPON SIGNING SPECIAL SESSION BUDGET BILLSTo the Members of the California State Assembly: I am signing Assembly Bill X8 6 and Assembly Bill X8 9. Last week, I sent a letter to the Legislature indicating my concerns with the gas tax swap proposed by Assembly Bill X8 6 that resulted in a tax increase on commuter rail services, and the fact that the Legislature provided no tax reductions to help stimulate job growth. Earlier in the day, the Legislature passed a measure to fix technical problems with the gas tax swap bill and passed two key tax reductions as part of my jobs package. The package of bills as written will provide significant benefit to the state’s general fund and will help put Californians back to work. For these reasons, I am signing these bills. I commend the Legislature for acting on the $200 million homebuyers’ tax credit. This successful program will lower taxes on the sale of both new and existing homes, stimulating the housing industry and creating jobs for thousands of Californians. Similarly, the tax exemption on the purchase of clean-technology manufacturing equipment will spur investment in solar manufacturing, renewable energy, fuel cells and zero-emission vehicles in California, creating jobs and maintaining California’s leadership in the field of clean-technology. I commend the Legislature for your strong bi-partisan actions on these measures. I encourage you to maintain this momentum and ask that before adjourning for Spring Recess the Legislature send me measures to relieve homeowners from tax penalties associated with the sale of their homes in a “short sale,” and extend federal tax provisions to renewable energy projects funded with federal stimulus dollars. These two measures are critical and time sensitive. I look forward to working with you to move our state and our economy forward. Thanks for the great work. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger
The Transit Coalition coordinates with other transportation advocacy organizations to fight for to protect critical state funding. State Transit Assistance Returns An additional round of bus service cuts in Orange County (OCTA buses) will be avoided as state transit funding was made available through legislation the governor signed late Monday night, officials said Tuesday. - OC Register San Diego MTS and NCTD strongly rely on these funds for operations. Omnitrans also relies on this money; RTA uses its state transit funding mainly for capital improvement projects. After three years of doing without, California will once again fund public transit at the state level. It's not the level we ought to be supporting, but it's certainly a start. - Riding in Riverside Transit Blog
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 6, 2010 12:17:40 GMT -8
I would like to follow up on this post from just over 1 year ago from this thread: "Friday, October 2, 2009 (10-02) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - The California Supreme Court has left intact a lower court's ruling that the state illegally raided money intended for local public transit projects, a decision that could leave the cash-strapped state on the hook for up to $3.6 billion." With Prop 22 being on the November ballot, presumably being able to put a final stop to government raiding of transit funds, it now has me wondering whatever happened to the $3.6 billion dollars mentioned above that the state illegally raided? You don't hear much about this these days. You would think that since the court ruled that the seizures were not legal, that the state would have to return the money. Someone correct me if I have this wrong. Is anyone at the local transit agencies following up on this? That money could certainly do a lot of good when it comes to building out projects and operating the rail and bus system. Or is this just a case where the state was told that it was doing something illegal, then was forced to stop, but there is no way for the local transit agencies to get the money back? Or is further legal action required to get the $3.6 billion. Inquiring minds want to know. In checking the ballot specifics, I see the following text: Also, if the ballot proposition is approved, when a local government entity sues the state government under the law and wins, the state comptroller must automatically appropriate the funds needed to pay to that local government the funds that the court has decided it is owed.I would imagine this is included because currently there is no way to force the state to pay the money back. The next question would then be, if this passes does it apply retro-actively to the $3.6 billion the state already owes, or does that again then get litigated? The other thing that I don't get is the opposition to this prop. If the state is going to be allowed to "permanently borrow" money from local agencies that have specific uses for it, like transit, then what is the point of even pretending to fund these at all if the state is going to be allowed to "permanently borrow" these funds? Anyone who thinks that any of this money will be coming back when the state gets it's fiscal house in order has been doing some pretty hard drugs... See this: www.sacbee.com/2010/09/11/3021098/ballot-watch-ban-on-state-using.htmlRT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 10, 2010 14:07:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 10, 2010 15:24:51 GMT -8
Apparently we're now counting on the "luck of the Irish" to solve our budget problems. That's not such a good thing if you look at Ireland's finances these days. We've already have the "luck of the Irish" the last few years, i.e. bad financial planning combined with a burst housing bubble.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 16, 2010 8:03:10 GMT -8
Unless we find permanent solutions and economy grows robustly, were going to see these massive shortfalls for YEARS to come.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 16, 2010 9:57:50 GMT -8
Thank God Proposition 25 passed. We will finally have accountability and authority on at least the spending side of the budget equation.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 16, 2010 15:21:04 GMT -8
^ Seriously, that piece of crap only delayed the inevitable at the expense of taxpayers, and was a minority-catoring back door to wasteful spending.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 11, 2011 8:13:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 11, 2011 8:20:42 GMT -8
This is just another example how, even with our passing of Measure R, a lot of the possible sources of advance money could start drying up until the economy starts to improve. The Crenshaw Federal money could just as easily disappear if the congress decides that they want to gut transit funding as part of the next vote on the continuing resolution coming up in a couple months. Just speculating, but this shows how interrelated all things are. Imagine if we hadn't passed Measure R back in 2008 With all the state and federal spending cutbacks, we could end up seeing a lot of projects (mostly outside LA County) delayed or outright canceled in the near term. RT
|
|