|
Post by darrell on Aug 3, 2008 15:24:48 GMT -8
There are long-time volunteer transit advocates' groups like SoCATA and Friends 4 Expo, there are "Astroturf" organizations, and there are NIMBYs cloaked as advocates for something else / somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 3, 2008 15:27:24 GMT -8
Not like the projects in the Draft LRTP and the proposed sales tax are all that new. Here is a crop of the L.A. County Transportation Commission's 10/91 Draft 30-Year Plan map. The Proposed Rail Component of the March 1992 "LACTC Proposed 30-Year Integrated Transportation Plan" includes three tiers: Fundable Plan - Red Line segments 1, 2, and 3 (North Hollywood)
- Orange Line (now Purple), east to Atlantic and west to Westwood
- San Fernando Valley East-West, North Hollywood to Sepulveda (Canoga Park "included in LACTC's commitment to the overall East-West Transit Project, pending outcome of the EIR and Public-Private Partnership initiatives.")
- Pasadena Line
- Green Line
- Commuter Rail
- Blue Line Downtown Connector
- Right-of-Way Protection Program
Candidate Corridors - Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa in the San Gabriel Valley
- Downtown Los Angeles to USC
- USC to Santa Monica
- Downtown Los Angeles to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport area
- Green Line to Orange County Rail Connection
- Green Line Multi-Modal Transportation Center to Westchester Parkway
- Route 60 Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley
- El Segundo to Torrance
Expanded Plan (the colored circles of Possible Future Extensions on the map) - The Tri-Cities Corridor linking the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena
- An extension of the Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley to the Pomona Valley
- Crenshaw Corridor providing a mid-city connection between the Green Line and the Exposition Corridor
- A corridor extending from Westchester Parkway to Marina Del Rey
Then there's the LAX-Palmdale Public-Private Partnership Project. ------------------------- So sixteen years later the project list hasn't changed much at all, beyond rise (especially Crenshaw) and fall in priority, and a couple of mode changes. Would yet another round of studies change anything -- especially after the extensive studies c. 2000 and the current round of corridor studies -- or just delay the benefits of completed projects again? ------------------------- On sales tax vs. other potential funding, the conclusion based on polling earlier this spring was it would be easier to pass a sales tax with a 2/3 majority than a new "fee" (e.g. on driving) by a majority, despite the lower threshold. See especially the Revenue Alternatives for a Sustainable Transportation System PowerPoint from the Subway to the Sea website for more on financial alternatives presented last January. Talk about bonds instead of a sales tax has to include what the revenue source (i.e. tax) is to repay them.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 3, 2008 20:05:33 GMT -8
Seems to me that they had the rail line priorities in much better order in 1991 now than they do in 2008. For example, the Downtown Connector should be way ahead in terms of priority over the Crenshaw Line IMO. 17 years hasn't bought us any more consensus or certainly better planning. All it did was allow the politicians to mess up things.
Why do the Long Range Plan, if everyone is going to say this is all new? The politicians just want more time to do deals to make sure their pet projects get ahead in the order even though they may not warrant it. Everyone, including Expo opponents are using the sales tax as leverage to accomplish their narrow goals. The Purple Line has been a priority for 30 years now. Waiting some more isn't going to accomplish anything positive.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 3, 2008 20:37:00 GMT -8
Crossposting comments I wrote today on StreetsBlogLA: The stereotypical bus rider who "can't afford" any fare increase must therefore spend nearly all of their income on groceries, rent, transit, and utilities, none of which pay sales tax in California.
This tax is projected to cost the average county resident only $25 per year*. A low-income transit rider would pay even less, and come out well-ahead in lower fares and better service.
*"According to the private nonprofit Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), Measure R would cost residents just $25 per person each year." ("Metro's Five-Point Plan", page 6)
See the "Revenue Alternatives for a Sustainable Transportation System" PowerPoint download for alternatives -- such as fees -- to sales tax funding presented at the January Subway to the Sea conference.
----------------------------
Let's talk about low-income budgets. From the 2007 "Poverty, Jobs and the Los Angeles Economy" at: Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
"In Los Angeles, the federal poverty line was $20,000 for a family of four in 2006. The California Budget Project estimates that even single adults living in Los Angeles would need more than $24,000 to meet their basic needs. In this report, the number of people living below 200 percent of the federal poverty line serves as a measure of those who lack the income to cover basic necessities and are therefore poor. The federal poverty level is used as a measure of the number of people living in extreme poverty."
"An estimated 1,505,004 million people, or 15.4 percent of Los Angeles County residents, live below the federal poverty threshold, considered in this report to be a measure of extreme need."
"An estimated 37.6 percent lived below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which was $40,000 per year for a family of four in 2006."
A $10/hour full-time job is about $20,000 per year.
Let's add up some round numbers: Rent & utilities = $1,000/month Metro monthly pass = $62 Groceries @$100/week = $400/month Social Security deduction @6.2% = $103 Everything else = $102
That's what $20,000 per year buys. Sobering.
But they would only pay $6.12/year = 50 cents/month for the additional 1/2-cent sales tax on "everything else", far less than their transit benefits received.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 4, 2008 5:34:15 GMT -8
This sales tax initiative is scheduled before the next 5-7 year federal transportation cycle, when the battle of funding the rest of the OTTER (Ocean To The Eastern Regions) light rail network, which is a full Expo, Downtown Connector and Gold Line from the beach to the eastern county line, must be fought.
There is an old Jewish saying that I learned in the tenth grade, a bit less than thirty years ago, that goes: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?"
The best way we can get that big ($1.5-$2 billion) federal match to complete this OTTER rail line is to show the federal and state powers that be that we're willing to tax ourselves to make these over due projects happen.
I wish that this state did a better job balancing the various priorities so that these transportation projects could be more easily and quickly funded, but at this immediate time it's pretty clear which projects have the most time and planning spent on conceiving their benefits for the region.
This sales tax is the right battle for 2008, and the state/federal match from Prop. 1B and TEA-21 renewal funds are the right battles for 2009. There are all sorts of axes to grind and personal agendas and egos to soothe, but probably most who oppose this sales tax publicly won't shed a tear and resist using the funds generated if it passes.
I'm more conservative and anti-tax than most people on this discussion board, and I absolutely think this is the right time and way to spend this tax money for the benefit of all county residents.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 4, 2008 19:22:10 GMT -8
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 4, 2008 23:34:06 GMT -8
A horrible sign. What deal could they possibly work out? Metro already voted.
Can Metro go back into session and ratify something at the last minute?
edit: Another reason why I don't believe that future proposals are going to somehow be better designed than this one:
Does anyone really believe that "more equitable" and "carefully planned" is anything but codeword for spread the money around the county in such a way that there's not enough for any substantial projects? It'll be a bunch of poorly conceived light rail lines with no grade separation that do nothing to provide real arteries for the system. Hell, there'll be some version where the subway to the sea gets 2 billion dollars and ends up being a piddling extension a few blocks down Wilshire and the Gold Line goes 900 miles into the San Gabriel Valley and then turns straight up and runs to the moon.
My confidence that more efficient sales taxes or bond proposals are going to show up after this one fails is very, very low.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 5, 2008 8:43:21 GMT -8
I am personally in favor of the tax plan, but let me be a devil's advocate.
The people of North LA County get nothing, the Valley gets a bus line, and Santa Monica gets both a subway and a light rail. And by the way, Santa Monica refuses to allow development near the transit lines so there is zero economic benefit for all of this investment in one small area. Sounds to me like one area stands to benefit far, far more than anywhere else.
This is why the subway should turn North towards to Valley after Westwood, to solve the 405 traffic problem.
And please, don't tell me the Valley gets hosed because people opposed the Orange line...there are just as many detractors out there for the new Westside Rail Line.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 9:21:43 GMT -8
The people of North LA County get nothing, the Valley gets a bus line, and Santa Monica gets both a subway and a light rail. And by the way, Santa Monica refuses to allow development near the transit lines so there is zero economic benefit for all of this investment in one small area. Sounds to me like one area stands to benefit far, far more than anywhere else. while i agree on the santa monica issues, north la is getting a completely new freeway and upgrades to there existing ones. along with upgrades to there metrolink operations. they dont deserve a subway, but thats pritty darn good if you ask me. the valley gets 1 busway, and a bunch of east west rapids. also, like the other region, many highway upgrades This is why the subway should turn North towards to Valley after Westwood, to solve the 405 traffic problem. And please, don't tell me the Valley gets hosed because people opposed the Orange line...there are just as many detractors out there for the new Westside Rail Line. you do realize that plan would almost triple the scope of the westside subway? something that is already the most expensive project in the county at only around 7 miles in length?
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 5, 2008 9:40:32 GMT -8
Upgrades to freeways do little to solve traffic issues, as do Metrolink Station Upgrades. And as you say, the Valley still gets...only bus service.
The biggest traffic issue anywhere is the 405 corridor between the Valley and LAX. Building a subway from Westwood to the Ocean may sound good for the Mayor's re-election campaign, but is does NOTHING to solve meaningful traffic issues and is a giant waste when the 405 issue remains unaddressed.
I support the new proposal, but frankly it is a giant subsidy to the Westside at the expense of the rest of the County.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 5, 2008 9:58:59 GMT -8
I am personally in favor of the tax plan, but let me be a devil's advocate. The people of North LA County get nothing, the Valley gets a bus line, and Santa Monica gets both a subway and a light rail. And by the way, Santa Monica refuses to allow development near the transit lines so there is zero economic benefit for all of this investment in one small area. Sounds to me like one area stands to benefit far, far more than anywhere else. This is why the subway should turn North towards to Valley after Westwood, to solve the 405 traffic problem. And please, don't tell me the Valley gets hosed because people opposed the Orange line...there are just as many detractors out there for the new Westside Rail Line. Several of your statements are completely untrue. North County, which I assume you mean Palmdale and Santa Clarita (only about 5% of the County population) will benefit from increased Metrolink operations under the plan, increased bus service, and the local city match for local transportation. Remember only 35% of the plan goes to building new rail, so as much as people say this is a plan to fund subway construction the facts just don't bear that out. Also, remember this area has been a huge beneficiary of freeway spending paid heavily by people in urban areas who had little freeway spending in their own areas. Also, Palmdale will benefit tremendously from the high-speed rail proposal before the state. Someone in Redondo Beach could say that Palmdale is benefitting from high-speed rail and they get no station so why should I vote for that. It works both ways. Finally, people in these areas are suburban and must use other parts of the county transportation system, because many of them commute to other parts of Los Angeles, but very few people in other areas of Los Angeles go to these bedroom communities for anything. This needs to be taken into account. You mentioned that Santa Monica is not allowing development around its stations. Not sure where you heard this, but this is false. Its latest city plans allow for increased development around its 3 Expo stations if they are built (and also encourage some development around bus lines). The city bought the Sears store site downtown for a future Expo stations and possible TOD. Also, remember that there is already significant development around several of these stations (Downtown SM, and the office complexes on Olympic). The subway is so far off there are no plans around that, but should it ever get built you could expect to see transit oriented densities around those stations increase. Last of all, there is already funding in the sales tax initiative for transit across the Sepulveda Pass so I think you missed that.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 10:27:25 GMT -8
You mentioned that Santa Monica is not allowing development around its stations. Not sure where you heard this, but this is false. Its latest city plans allow for increased development around its 3 Expo stations if they are built (and also encourage some development around bus lines). The city bought the Sears store site downtown for a future Expo stations and possible TOD. Also, remember that there is already significant development around several of these stations (Downtown SM, and the office complexes on Olympic). The subway is so far off there are no plans around that, but should it ever get built you could expect to see transit oriented densities around those stations increase. i believe kinsfan was referring to this (LA Times Article PDF)
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 5, 2008 12:39:52 GMT -8
Well..forget it now. No sales tax vote this November
How do we get Antonovich, Knable, and Molina off the board?
LA Times - Sales Tax Measure Denied by L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Board votes 3 to 2 to keep the tax aimed at transit improvements off the November ballot.
By Garrett Therolf, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 12:58 PM PDT, August 5, 2008 - Link to Article
In a surprise move, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors denied a request today to place a half-cent sales tax on the November ballot to pay for up to $40 billion of road and mass transit improvements, including the so-called subway to the sea.
The board's two Republicans, Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe, joined Democrat Gloria Molina to deny the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's request to place the measure on the ballot.
MTA votes to seek sales tax hike to fund... L.A. trash fee hike is approvedLos Angeles County Registrar Recorder Dean Logan said the MTA must now pay up to $10 million for a special second ballot on election day or ask a court to force the measure onto the existing Nov. 4 ballot.
The Republicans said they were opposed to new taxes. Molina said she was voting in opposition to "back room deals" by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky that she said would steer too much of the tax's proceeds to his Westside district and too little to her Eastside district.
garrett.therolf@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Aug 5, 2008 12:43:15 GMT -8
That motion only means that it would have to be put on a separate ballot. As Steve Hymon said, it's more symbolic than anything. That being said, this separate ballot is a waste of money and Metro plans to sue to get it on the November ballot along with everything else that we will be voting for.
But I wouldn't mind voting off Antonovich. The others, I just don't know enough about.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 13:46:20 GMT -8
its an extra 10 million bucks, we should be rioting in the streets with pitchforks and maltov cocktails
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 13:57:37 GMT -8
seriously, when is antonovich up for re-election? or is he in for good?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 5, 2008 14:46:01 GMT -8
the comments to the L.A. Times article are certainly interesting. some people get it, some people don't.
some people are wedded to their cars and can't imagine how transit would help them. some hate all taxes for all purposes and all reasons. some want to see the pothole in front of their house fixed and couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone else. some want the freeways fixed. some people are convinced that the MTA are looking out for everyone but them. some don't hate transit, but are convinced that there is money hidden under pillows at the bureaucracy of the MTA.
ridicule them for these opinions if you want, but you know what? these are the people who voted Antonovich into office, and they'll vote for Antonovich's hand-picked successor.
just a few things to keep in mind before you reach for the pitchforks and torches.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 14:58:18 GMT -8
when was antonovich voted in or re-elected. i want to know if i can be blamed for him being in control of san gabriel...
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 5, 2008 15:15:28 GMT -8
In my opinion, this only ensures that the MTA will next work to fund the Expo line, then the Crenshaw line, maybe Foothill to Azusa, and finally the DTC - all at the speed of a moving glacier. Unless some miracle occurs...like true 100% gridlock or gas goes up to $10 a gallon. I doubt that the Gold line will reach San Bernadino in 75 years. And, if the Governor enacts a 1 cent sales tax, then we all will be paying much more than the 1/2 cents and getting NOTHING for it. We shall see, but it looks very bad from here.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 15:17:10 GMT -8
perhaps a extended trip to singapore is in order for me
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 5, 2008 15:26:54 GMT -8
This just defies logic. Now Molina, Knabe and Antonovich can have a greater percentage of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 5, 2008 16:22:12 GMT -8
Right now, I can understand some of the concerns Knabe had--if the state is going to push its own sales tax hike this year, and is likely to raid more transportation funds, then perhaps this wouldn't have reached the 67% margin. I wish he did not vote the way he did, but he was always quietly and resolutely anti-tax, especially during an economic downturn, so I am much more understanding of his viewpoint.
I am not so sanguine about the childish antics of Antonovich and Molina, however.
Maybe it's best to just have the cities fund their own local matches...such as the City of L.A. focusing on separate authorities to fund the Green Line to LAX and the Red Line to La Cienega...but with local dollars. Maybe the SGV cities can find their own local $80 million match and get that magic $320 million from the feds (provided that such a plan will actually occur when the gas tax fund is going broke!).
Or...maybe Antonovich and Molina can go pound sand and they can now face their own constituents...because now THEY are to blame more than the eeeeeeeeeeevil Yaroslavsky or Villaraigosa can ever be for not getting new projects for their own districts.
We're getting an Expo Line, then a Crenshaw Line, then a Downtown Connector and then a Wilshire Subway...that is the list right now, folks!
As for the Gold Line extensions...well, who knows when they will occur or even IF they will occur.
(and to think I get so much heat because I still favor term limits...)
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 5, 2008 16:35:48 GMT -8
I think we need to do something about this issue...
Should the tax measure fail to make it to the ballot at all, I think it would be right to at this point to prepare a "no build" alternative (both short term and long term) as transit advocates. Let me know what you think:
1. Finish construction of Phase I of Expo.
1A. Extend existing bus routes that connect to the Westside such as Metro Rapid Line 761 and/or express routes to an Expo Station. These routes will connect Expo riders to employment on the Westside.
2. Start construction of Phase II of Expo.
3. Upgrade Foothill Transit Line 690 which emulates portions of the proposed Foothill Gold Line Project, which would serve as an interim bus bridge/feeder as SGV waits for the Gold Line. Have the route operate hourly midday trips and weekend trips as a phase 1 upgrade, and then upgrade midday headways to 30 minutes and offer late night service as a phase 2 upgrade.
4. Support the Metrolink Max Campaign Project for the San Bernardino Line which runs a few miles south of the Foothill Gold Line alignment. The project would bring about 30 minute headway Metrolink Service to the SB Line and a few other Metrolink Lines. Lauch an airport shuttle which would connect employees and travelers between the Montclair TC and Ontario Airport.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 5, 2008 17:54:52 GMT -8
You know, I can see why people get so angry with Damien.
Cheering that the ballot is going to be printed at extra expense? What value does this add? Virtual dream maps are all well and good, but at a certain point rubber needs to meet the road.
The Supervisor's plan seems to be to just put a much worse, much more badly designed sales tax on the ballot next year that will be even further away from what he was advocating. The money will be so spread out that nothing will be grade-separated or properly built, it'll all be abortive segments. And that's assuming they can actually get a sales tax on the ballot two years in a row.
In five years when we're all arguing over the tax measure that we should've passed this year, I imagine many of us will be thinking back and regretting all the wasted time.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 5, 2008 21:56:25 GMT -8
Well, the Expo Line is proceeding at its normal pace, and maybe the City of L.A. can take matters into its own hands with the Expo and Crenshaw and Downtown projects that lie within its city limits. Too bad Ms. Molina forgot that there are plenty of Angelenos who live within her supervisorial district.
...and Antonovich will have given one heckuva sound bite/talking point for the Westside if they do take matters into their own hands (and I could see them doing just that). Fight to get the eastern county freeways upgraded? Forget it.
...and should the Foothill Gold Line Authority have to fall apart in another year? Well, there will be shortage of fingers (although I'm sure he won't acknowledge his blame) pointing to Antonovich.
There IS, however, the possibility that a backlash against Molina and/or Antonovich could get them to reconsider their votes. I also believe that Mr. Knabe's own personal anti-tax beliefs won't be too consistent with $10 million being unnecessarily spent for the separate ballot.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 5, 2008 22:29:49 GMT -8
maybe the City of L.A. can take matters into its own hands with the Expo and Crenshaw and Downtown projects that lie within its city limits. This is what I was thinking as I was listening to the news report about it on KFWB today. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing this at a city level for vital projects such as the Wilshire subway, regional connector, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 5, 2008 22:51:17 GMT -8
maybe the City of L.A. can take matters into its own hands with the Expo and Crenshaw and Downtown projects that lie within its city limits. This is what I was thinking as I was listening to the news report about it on KFWB today. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing this at a city level for vital projects such as the Wilshire subway, regional connector, etc.? I know Ken is always saying that the City of LA should fund the projects itself. This is all but impossible and no political leader has seriously contemplated this at all. The Expo, Purple Line, and Crenshaw Lines all have significant segments outside the City of Los Angeles for one (Culver City, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, etc...). They aren't Los Angeles projects by any means. Also, many residents of LA live far from these lines such as San Pedro and the Valley. You'll have an even bigger problem with them saying they aren't getting anything when they have to fund a tax. Also, the MTA is a County Agency. How do you expect one city in the County to suddenly fund its capital, and have that be equitable. I wish people would stop talking about this as a realistic option, because it simply is not and has never been contemplated as such. Please prove me otherwise as I would be interested as much as anyone to get a few of these projects going. Personally, I think we can finish Expo with Prop A and C funds along with a big federal match, which hopefully we should be able to get. I would then scrap Crenshaw and go for the DTC around the next Federal Funding cycle in 2015 or so. I'd fund $200M or so from Prop 1B and try like hell to get a big federal match - if the Gold Line can supposedly get an 80% match then this should be able to as well theoretically (with peak oil and a more progressive federal government this may be more possible than people can imagine). By the time the next federal cycle comes around in 2021 or 2022, then Crenshaw can come into play perhaps. It all looks bleak now, but a lot can change. I'd be very disappointed if the voters didn't approve this or it didn't make it to the ballot, but it may not be the end of the world.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 5, 2008 23:57:19 GMT -8
The current plan without a new revenue source is basically unacceptable for this county's needs.
Fare increases, Expo, and maybe one more half of a project with federal funding (sure as hell not the Gold Line) is going to hold this county's economy back for decades. At some point in the next few years we need a new revenue source to build new projects. It was supposed to be this tax, but I'm guessing after this fails there'll be a lot of blame-game going on and it'll take two or three years at least to put a replacement up on the ballot. What that replacement is, I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was either a worse version of this tax or if Los Angeles sentiment had shifted and suddenly 67% seemed unachievable no matter what.
Ideally the time would be spent lowering the 67% barrier to 55%, but the Republicans in the Assembly have made it clear they consider that a non-starter (god forbid we allow this state to be governed) ... things do indeed seem bleak. I'm not sure why anyone would spend their time cheering for this outcome.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 6, 2008 2:34:25 GMT -8
From LA Observed:
I'm told by an aide to a Supervisor that the Times' web story played it wrong — that the vote today only decided whether to consolidate what are technically separate elections on Nov. 4. "Voters WILL still vote on the sales tax issue. It will just be a separate ballot that voters will get during the same election," says the aide. "This was all clearly explained at the meeting today."
[...]
Update 3: Daily News gets it right the first time, in a story by county reporter Troy Anderson that ably discusses the politics and that says, correctly, that the special election would cost $3 million not the $10 million the Times reported.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 6, 2008 4:26:48 GMT -8
Actually, the Green Line to LAX (should it have its own Authority, as has been proposed) would be funded through such vehicles as parking structures and commercial real estate that lie within L.A. City limits, and with such Authorities the City of L.A. has and can consider taking matters into its own hands.
This isn't just my crazy idea, although I can understand why masonite might conclude it is. Similarly, certain SGV cities have taxed themselves to create street grade separations (at least if my memory serves me correctly) as betterments for the Gold Line. The Cities of Culver City and Los Angeles both put some money into assisting with grade separating the Expo Line Downtown and within Culver City boundaries (USC, though, weaseled out of every obligation after attempts to make everyone else pay for an expensive subway segment).
So there are mechanisms for cities to do the job themselves if the county can't come together. At this point, I'd welcome more city and private investments if the county can't pull itself together...and at this point it does appear dubious for this sales tax to reach the 67% threshold if we don't have more politicians continuously badmouthing it.
|
|